Evolutionary aspects of 'failed' reas... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

The Peoples' Book Forum » On the Failings of Reason (closed-archived) » Evolutionary aspects of 'failed' reason. « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Humancafe
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 09:44 am:   

We will split off this thread to examine evolutionary aspects of reason, or 'failed' reason, as mentioned by Mohideen Ibramsha (in below post). How did human reason become what it is today? What other influences has evolution played in developments of mind? Is 'mind' an evolutionary inevitable?

- Eds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 04:52 am:   

http://www.dhushara.com/paradoxhtm/homo.htm
===
The human menstrual period is coupled to the lunar cycle in a way which is different from those of our close relatives. Chimps have a cycle of 36 days and bonobos a doubled cycle of 60 days (de Waal R156). The Barbary macaque’s menstrual cycle is 31 and the Japanese macaque’s is 28 days in duration (Shlain R617 177). Human cycles average very closely to the 29.53 days of the lunar cycle. About 28% of reproductively mature women show a 29.5 ± 1 day cycle length (Cutler et. al. R137). Vollman et al. (R694-R696) as well as Treloar et al. (R674, R675), have shown that women whose cycles approach the 29.5 day span have the highest likelihood of fertile cycles, while women whose cycles become longer or shorter have a proportionately diminishing incidence of fertile cycles.
===

Is there any evolutionary explanation for the above observation? If evolution favors the ‘survival of the fittest’ why should the most fertile female have a cycle coinciding with the lunar month?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 05:22 pm:   

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=RD03096
===
The human Y chromosome is running out of time. In the last 300 million years, it has lost 1393 of its original 1438 genes, and at this rate it will lose the last 45 in a mere 10 million years.
===

For a person with an average life expectancy of about 80 years, 10 million years is infinity. Still there are recent discoveries to extend this period of the survival of the Y chromosome.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/full/nature04101.html
===
These findings contradict the model of the human Y chromosome's impending demise, and instead provide empirical support for mathematical models of sex chromosome evolution that predict a slowing of the rate of gene decay as Y chromosomes evolve.
===

With the slowing of the rate of decay, the model is not linear but an exponential decay like the decay of the voltage of a capacitor discharging across a constant resistance. Given that 300 million years ago the Y chromosome had 1,438 genes and that now it has just 45 genes, the time constant is slightly more than 86.596429 million years. The existing 45 genes shall decay to just one gene in another 629.64 million years. After that the only gene has to vanish.

We are looking at the demise of the Y chromosome in a time of 10 million to approximately 630 million years. That is mankind as we know cannot survive forever. Further until then, the Y chromosome is unstable and thus mankind is unstable.

The question is: In an unstable world could reason be predictive? In a stable world, reason has some chance of being predictive. In an unstable world, what chance?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 06:46 pm:   


quote:

The question is: In an unstable world could reason be predictive? In a stable world, reason has some chance of being predictive. In an unstable world, what chance?


I don't know enough about DNA or genetics to offer any help on this. It seems to be the 'vanishing' Y chromosone will eventually lead to an evolution of some androgenous race, no women? I don't know how this would affect women or men's ability to reason, however. For that matter, neither do I know how good the science is... Beyond my reasonable ability to comment, maybe somebody else knows more?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 08:02 pm:   

Given the human race took six million years to evolve to its current form the issue of what it will look like in 10 million years is meaningless sepeculation.

The issue at hand is the survival of this branch of the race with has existed for far less than a million years and has managed in that time to split the atom and move into space, something no other species that lasted for millions of years longer on this planet has done.

As we move forward in technology the issue of material being is becoming questionable. Cybernetics, cloning, genetic manipulation, brain machine interfaces, thought controled computers and finally the complete fusing of man and machine or a transformation into another state of being by being able to open a door into multi-dimentional space that we can move through, giving up this form of existance as we know it, are all possibilities.

To limit yourself to the idea of continued existance in the flesh unchanging from its present form is in my opinion the sign of a limited imagination. Much like the ancient attempts to paint pictures of heaven and hell.

Our greatest minds are wrestling with the concept of multidimentional space and in my exploration of geometry I have imperfectally glimpse a fragment of the hypercube as it interacts with this dimension as depicted by geometry.

This in turn has led me to think of what lays beyound and if other races in the universe have been able to move beyound the flesh to another form of existance and what they could or not do in that form.

I firmly believe that we are close to a transformational experience and that we will one day be able to break the interdimentional barrier like we are able to break the sound barrier and that when we do, we will witness wonders we can not even imagine.

Our present understanding of the universe is imperfect and when it becomes better I expect that we will all finally put down the swords and walk hand in hand in this flesh through a doorway into another form of existance.

Ed Chesky
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 08:03 pm:   

DEVO?

There are some 'Creationist' theories of de-evolution around, that human beings were once smarter than they are today, and that instead we are devolving. However, there is no scientific evidence for this, quite to the contrary, that evolution is as the word implies, a progression forward. There is certainly no evidence in the fossil records of life progressing backwards. Most likely, if a species fails to adapt and evolve it is left behind, eventually unable to compete with more progressive species, and die out. I suspect the same can be said for humans, that those whose intelligence fails to develop, they get left behind, and eventually get overpowered by those who are more intelligent, in competition for space and food. As the planet is becoming better connected, such as the internet, there is growing pressure to use our minds, which will force some to become more adept at reason, even if they are not inclined personally to do so. Competition of the species, whether or not we like it, is what happens over time. The more successful species wins, which is why evolution takes the direction it does. An exception might be found, in some isolated land areas, where evolution stops, that is the exception.

Some people think Australian aborigines, which are actually genetically a Caucasian species of man, most closely related to people of Tamil Nadu, though dark of complexion; that these people by being isolated failed to develop into modern Caucasians. I personally don't agree with this, though it is intriguing that when Europeans and aborigines intermarry, the 'regressive' aboriginal gene disappears within four generations, and the offsprings become more like modern Caucasians... believe it or not... but that's what I was told when visiting an aboriginal clan in the outback.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 09:23 pm:   

Ed, I tend to agree with yours:

quote:

Given the human race took six million years to evolve to its current form the issue of what it will look like in 10 million years is meaningless sepeculation.


We cannot even forecast 100 years correctly, so going out millions of years is truly a stretch, speculation at best. We don't know, as you pointed out, what kind of synergies will exist in the future, especially if we discover other aspects of reality, meaning our mind evolves in ways we cannot even now envision, that the future may be very far different from anything we can now think of. I remember days before internet, before fax machines, CDs and DVDs, before iPods, and none of these were on my 'radar scope' for the future. I figured someday we would have personal computers that could tap into our local libraries, but that was about it, except I did forsee email, called back them 'electronic mail'. So we don't know the future, even the best futurists got it all wrong. Remember back in grade school when we were told in the future everybody would get around with helicopters, and there would be great skyways with fancy fast machines zipping us around, kind of like in the Jetsons? Well, that didn't happen. We still drive around in souped up SUVs firing on primitive piston technology developed over 100 years ago, except for a few of us with hybrid electric enegines, merely a small improvement. So what about human reason in a million years? Who knows? :-) !!

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Tuesday, July 25, 2006 - 10:35 pm:   

Domesticating Humans :-)

nz326.jpg


"If you take away their swords and fangs, the worst they can do is gum you to death.... Wooarff!"


Le Chef des Chiens :-)


--Thanks to Nick and his friends - NearingZero.net.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, July 31, 2006 - 05:53 pm:   

I personally don't agree with this, though it is intriguing that when Europeans and aborigines intermarry, the 'regressive' aboriginal gene disappears within four generations, and the offsprings become more like modern Caucasians... believe it or not... but that's what I was told when visiting an aboriginal clan in the outback.
Posted on Monday, July 24, 2006 - 05:03 pm: Ivan


The aboriginal clan seems to have told the truth as indicated below:

http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/male-contributiontodiet.pdf
===
Whereas the Iberian gene flow to the Canarian population consisted mainly of male lineages, Africans contributed more with female ones. This sexual disequilibrium has a plausible historical explanation based on the asymmetrical migration of the Iberian conquerors to the Canary Islands and by their different behavior depending on the sex of the aborigines. In occupation times, the Iberian migration was mainly a male migration, so they displaced autochthonous males by death or deportation but mixed with aboriginal females. Whereas autosomal genes of Iberian and aborigines mixed and recombined, the Iberian Y-chromosome lineages have practically replaced the aboriginal male background, while the mtDNA lineages continue to be mainly aboriginal.
===

My original question regarding the cycle of the most fertile female coinciding with the lunar cycle is still unanswered. Any pointers?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 02:17 am:   

TALES OF DESERT ARABS VS. LOGIC OF MODERN MAN

This is lifted off another blog, Aug. 11, 2006; 3:46 AM: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/012631.php#comments


"Tabari I:232 “Gabriel brings to the sun a garment of luminosity from the light of Allah’s Throne according to the measure of the hours of the day. The garment is longer in the summer and shorter in the winter, and of intermediate length in autumn and spring. The sun puts on that garment as one of you here puts on his clothes.”

[The sun wears clothes, and like us, their length varies depending upon the season. It even has a butler ]

"Tabari I:233 “When the Messenger was asked about that, he replied, ‘When Allah was done with His creation He created two suns from the light of His Throne. His foreknowledge told Him that He would efface one and change it to a moon; so the moon is smaller in size.”

[How about that! the moon is a sun says "Allah"]

"Tabari I:234 “Then the Prophet said: ‘For the sun and the moon, Allah created easts and wests on the two sides[??] of the earth and the two rims of heaven. There are 180 springs in the west of black clay-this is why Allah’s word says: “He found the sun setting in a muddy spring.” [18:86] The black clay bubbles and boils like a pot when it boils furiously.’”

How about that! The sun sets in a muddy pond in the west ON earth. So say "Allah" [what a dumb god]

"Tabari I:235 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Allah created an ocean three farakhs (918 kilometers) removed from heaven. Waves contained, it stands in the air by the command of Allah. No drop of it is spilled. All the oceans are motionless, but that ocean flows at the speed of an arrow. The sun, moon and retrograde stars [planets] by which Allah swears in the Qur’an [81:15], run like the sun and moon and race. All of the other stars are suspended from heaven as lamps are from mosques, and circulate together praising Allah. The Prophet said, ‘If you wish to have this made clear, look to the circulation of the sphere alternately here and there.’”

[Allah says it, it must be so. Better inform Nasa that they have it all wrong.]

"Tabari I:236 “‘When the sun rises upon its chariot from one of those springs it is accompanied by 360 angels with outspread wings…. When Allah wishes to test the sun and the moon, showing His servants a sign and thereby getting them to obey, the sun tumbles from the chariot and falls into the deep end of that ocean.[amazing!] When Allah wants to increase the significance of the sign and frighten His servants severely, all of the sun falls and nothing of it remains in the chariot. That is a total eclipse of the sun. It is a misfortune for the sun.’”
...

"Tabari I:236 “Allah created two cities out in space, each with ten thousand gates, each 6 kilometers distant from the other. By Allah, were those people not so many and so noisy, all the inhabitants of this world would hear the loud crash made by the sun falling when it rises and when it sets [in that muddy pond]. Gabriel took me to them during my Night Journey from the Sacred Mosque [the Ka’aba] to the Farthest Mosque [the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem]. I told the people of these cities to worship Allah but they refused to listen to me.” "

How could modern men and women belief in these old folk tales of the desert Arabs back 14 centuries? Reason makes no hold here, only old superstitious stories. At least these old wives tales are benign, if silly, but they do not call on killing people for jihad, like these: Aug. 11, 2:50 AM, same page:

"Ishaq:204 “‘Men, do you know what you are pledging yourselves to in swearing allegiance to this man?’ ‘Yes. In swearing allegiance to him we are pledging to wage war against all mankind.’”

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.”

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:29“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Qur’an:8:39 “Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah.”

Ishaq:208 “When Allah gave permission to his Apostle to fight, the second Aqaba contained conditions involving war which were not in the first act of submission. Now we bound themselves to war against all mankind for Allah and His Apostle. He promised us a reward in Paradise for faithful service. We pledged ourselves to war in complete obedience to Muhammad no matter how evil the circumstances.” " (as posted by Mullahmasher)

How could intelligent people believe these things? Do Mulsims really have such poor image of themselves to stoop so low?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 03:09 pm:   

Thanks for that paper referenced above on Anthropology. I read through the papers, especially the one on the Canary Islands gene pool, where it says:

"Whereas the Iberian gene flow to the Canarian population consisted mainly of male lineages, Africans contributed more with female ones. This sexual disequilibrium has a plausible historical explanation based on the asymetrical migration of the Iberian conquerors to the Canary Islands and by their different behavior depending on the sex of the aborigines. In occupation times, the Iberian migration was mainly male migration, so they displaced autochthonous males by death or deportation but mixed with aboriginal females." -pg. 754 (Current Anthropology, Vol. 412: 15, Dec. 2001)

So it seems that those who invaded the islands and displaced the local male population, common in conquests as the males are killed off, then bred with the indigenous female population, which skews the gene pool. It would be interesting to do these studies in another 50 years to see how this gene pool changed again, now that there is a large influx of sub-Saharan Africans economic migrants coming to the islands, perhaps only as a stepping stone to reach Europe. Each conquest brings a new gene pool, though this new invasion is not killing off the indigenous male population, and may not even mix with the females, since women are part of this new migration too, though in small numbers. If the African immigrants stay for any length of time and find local female partners, the gene pool will change again.

I had great fun reading the article on Richard 'Scotty' MacNeish, the archeology anthropologist, on his exploration exploits and contributions to the field. I had spent many fine days poking around ancient Indian ruins in the American Southwest, finding artifacts. I as well had great fun entering off-limits 'forbidden' ancient Egyptian burial tombs in Valley of the Kings through passageways opened by earlier trespassers. There were always bats, as once flew towards me while climbing through a passageway in Gebel Barkal, Sudan, into what was believed by the ancients to be a tunnel where the goddess Hathor entered the mountain. My archeology friends from Boston's Museum of Fine Arts explained the ancient belief of the Kush people who lived there about 700 BC. I also spent many wonderful hours at the Harvard University's Peabody Museum, Cambridge, MA, probably about the time MacNeish was its head, and especially fascinated by the Mayan artifacts there. I wish I were three people, so the other two could have made a life of archeology and astrophysics, or maybe something useful like a classical music composer. :-)

But I don't have a clue as to why female menstrual cycles are oriented towards the moon. Maybe something to do with lunar tidal forces, since we're 80% saline water, just like our world's oceans?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 01:49 am:   

DRAVIDIAN LANGUAGE: it may be the 'mother tongue' of much of the world's languages.

Wikipedia: Dravidian Languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_languages#Phonology

Etruscan, A Dravidian Tongue?
http://www.verbix.com/documents/etruscan-dravidian.htm

Comparing Basque and the Dravidian Languages
http://www.islandnet.com/~nyland/dravidia.htm

People traveled, conquered, traded, and settled in very ancient times farther than anyone imagined. Comparative linguistic studies are rewriting anthropology from Iberian peninsula, to Iran, to India, to Polynesia. All are linguistically related for at least some of their language groups.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:22 pm:   

But I don't have a clue as to why female menstrual cycles are oriented towards the moon. Maybe something to do with lunar tidal forces, since we're 80% saline water, just like our world's oceans?
Posted on Sunday, August 13, 2006 - 12:09 pm: Ivan


If saline water is the link, it should apply to all mammals. Is it not?

My main motivation in raising the question was to indicate the possibility that evolution is for all life except mankind. That God exists and God did indeed create man and the first man’s spouse as depicted in some scriptures.

Another possibility is that the female of the mankind were shy and thus did not allow sex when it was bright. Thus even during night the moonless nights might have been preferred. However even this fails because I believe the onset of the monthly period does not crowd around the moonless nights. Or does it? Can some researcher on the topic of menstrual cycles throw some light?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 07:57 pm:   

LUNAR REPRODUCTIVE CYCLE?

Some marine animals have a lunar cycle too:
The adaptive significance of a lunar or semi-lunar reproductive cycle in marine animals, by Koji Omori. In the abstract, he says: "In this study, the adaptive significance of reproductive rhythmicity in increasing the reproductive rate, is examined by analyzing the model which has three major controlling parameters, i.e. population density, sex ratio, and the duration of breeding interval." Another consideration is that women who have extreme low body fat cease to menstruate, such as athletes or aboriginal women during periods of food shortages, when their body mass drops. In humans, women have about 13 lunar chances to ovulate per annum, so menstruate commensurately. This may insure against a drop in population from many causes, including animal predators or food scarcity, or pandemic disease. However, now that some of these dangers no longer afflict us, the evolutionary changes in DNA had not yet kicked in to lower the cycles, though fertility amongst more modern societies is down, which may be a self regulating phenomenon if there are already too many people on the planet. Of course, amongst the very poor, this has not yet happened, which in effect maintains them in poverty with too many mouths to feed. So something is dysfunctional with the natural process, if this process had not yet caught up with modern realities. Evolutionary change takes time.

Some animals species have ovulation and procreation adapted to seasonal factors, so the young are born at an opportune time of survivability. Human don't have such seasonality, so they ovulate frequently. Why only 13 times per year? Why not 26 times per year? This remains a mystery, though not all women ovulate at the same time, and some menstrual cycles do fall on new moon, oddly enough. I don't think we can read into this in any theological sense, but the science is not yet well developed. Are humans different from animals, did God created us in any way different from the creation of all life? Probably not, we're all species native to this planet. Some animals may also have lunar cycles, as per link above, for these marine animals that we know of. How much do we still not know? Is a saline lunar tidal factor in some way involved? Possibly for all, though this cycle may be interrupted for some species due to seasonal or other factors, such as food density. I'm not aware of any definitive scientific studies on this, so for now it remains speculative.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 06:43 am:   

Some animals may also have lunar cycles, as per link above, for these marine animals that we know of.
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 04:57 pm: Ivan


The wave activity in the sea is controlled by the moon. So it is natural that the marine mammals have a lunar productive cycle. However the land does not undergo violent changes as the sea does because of the moon.

As regards animals having lunar cycles see the next post.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 06:52 am:   

Are humans different from animals, did God created us in any way different from the creation of all life?
Posted on Monday, August 14, 2006 - 04:57 pm: Ivan


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estrous_cycle
===
The estrous cycle (also oestrous cycle; originally derived from Latin oestrus) refers to the recurring physiologic changes that are induced by reproductive hormones in most mammalian placental females; humans and great apes are the only mammals who undergo a menstrual cycle instead.
===

From the above we conclude that humans are different from all mammals except the great apes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovulation
===
Because the signs are not readily discernable by people other than the woman herself, humans are said to have a concealed ovulation.
===

In contrast, the great apes do have revealed ovulation. Thus human are indeed distinct from all other species.

Why is it not possible to have separate rule of creation by God for the human race?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 06:56 am:   

In the Wikipedia article referred to in the above post, an average of 28 days is taken for the menstrual cycle. However the most fertile cycle is of 29.5 days. With 365 days per solar year, we get 37 cycles in 3 solar years rather than the 39 as suggested by the Wikipedia article. So the issue is not increased chance of procreation as between 12 and 13.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:06 pm:   

Fastest-evolving human gene linked to brain

No need to give humans some special 'God preference' as compared to other life forms. We simply have a gene that accelerated the growth of our cerebral-cortext, so became more brain empowered than chimps and other animals. Science here overrules religion, where our God-given reason works better than belief.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:32 pm:   

We simply have a gene that accelerated the growth of our cerebral-cortext, so became more brain empowered than chimps and other animals. Science here overrules religion, where our God-given reason works better than belief.
Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 05:06 pm: Ivan


http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9767.html
===
There are only two changes in the 118 letters of DNA code that make up HAR1 between the genomes of chimps and chickens. But chimps and humans are 18 letter-changes apart. And those mutations occurred in just five million years, as we evolved from our shared ancestor.
===

Out of the three sentences quoted above, the following two are experimentally observed facts:
1. There are only two changes in the 118 letters of DNA code that make up HAR1 between the genomes of chimps and chickens.
2. But chimps and humans are 18 letter-changes apart.

The third sentence is not a fact. It is a hypothesis explaining the fact of the first two sentences.
3. And those mutations occurred in just five million years, as we evolved from our shared ancestor.
There is no proof that the above actually happened. There is no proof that we had a common ancestor.

Religion claims that the mankind is a separate and distinct creation from every other kind. True there is no proof for that. It is a hypothesis.

Given two hypotheses, one claiming that 18 changes are not the product of the slow evolution but the result of the Creator designing afresh is more credible than simply clinging on to a theory that cannot be proven.

There is a gap in evolution between mankind and the animal-kind. This difference of 18 letters instead of just 2 letters is a confirmation of that gap.

Just because a number of editors and referees of some journals funded by some who feel offended by a statement of the Creator that some of the persistent evil doers were transformed into apes does not automatically make one hypothesis superior to another.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 12:47 am:   

Mohideen,

Perhaps you should study human anthropology. The fossil bone record is quite extensive. From Afarensis to Erectus to Homo Sapiens. If you don't believe evolution and natural selection happens, how do you explain variances in skin tone and body type in various regions? Africans who hail from hot climates typically have long lean muscled bodies and features "adapted" to release the heat associated with that climate. Many Europeans have skeletal and muscle body types and body hair associated with colder climate. These are just small examples of natural selection that happened in the 100,000 year period since mankind left Africa. What do you think happened in the 5 million years between chimp and man?

See "The Journey of Man", by anthropologist Spencer Wells, which uses blood data (DNA) to chart the migration and adaptation of human beings around the world.

Genetics will tell you two people (as per genesis) are not enough to start a viable gene pool. So Adam and his spouse as she is called in the Quran, couldn't have populated the earth. Genetics will tell you the human race started in Africa (an alternate but less accepted theory also puts Asia as a possble site of modern Homo Sapiens evolution from erectus). Many species have been outcompeted or relegated to extinction due to the presence of another. This is natural selection and competition for resources.

If you admit to some form of Genesis by way of Divine intervention (at least from the Abrahamic point of view) you have to look at the Sodom and Gomorrah story. God / Allah wiped out the people due to their evil. Did he make a mistake in creating them that way? What about The Tower of Babel? Did God really separate man into the various races and "confuse" their languages because they built a tower that came to close to heaven? Is God really that jealous? For that matter, why would the most intelligent being in the universe want to be worshipped? NoOOOO!

If God is anything, it is pure science, pure knowledge. We are given insight into this knowledge so that we can come to an understanding of what we are and advance or perish.

As for the 18 changes in DNA sequences, lets look at what your book says:

Sura 15:28 "I am creating a human being out of aged mud . . ."
Sura 15:33 the devil says, "I am not to fall prostrate before a human being, whom You (Allah) created from mud . . . . "
Sura 96:2 "He created man from an Embryo"
Sura 76:2 "We created the human from a liquid mixture, from two parents . . ."

Well what is the genetic variance between a human and mud? I will give you the embryo and the liquid mixture . . . but not the mud!

As an African-American I greatly protest the Abrahamic religions beaten into my ancestors through slavery or even coerced into my West African ancestors as Muslims swept through North Africa. My best friend is Muslim and we debate all the time (so Quran is very familiar to me). Remember that many religions exist - mono and polytheistic, and many religions have turned into mythology. Religion fears science because science frees humanity from dogma, ritual, fear, and divine ultimatum.
I have seen the result of blind faith. Many African Americans are still in a social and educational deficit because they cling to religion and make little effort to embrace science. I will not be a part of it. I study all religions, and they all have a great message. None to be valued less or more than the other. But today's world moves through empirical research and understanding. Keep living in the past and you will find yourself passed.

P.S. I live my life righteously and believe in a higher power. I will not need your sympathy, nor am I one of the nonbelievers whose mind is blocked (which is the rhetoric of your book). I am simply educated enough to make an intelligent and original choice about my belief system, and it happens to differ from the world's mainstream religions. Ironically your prophets were all men who did this. Buddha did this. None followed convention, and neither should you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 01:25 am:   


quote:

P.S. I live my life righteously and believe in a higher power. I will not need your sympathy, nor am I one of the nonbelievers whose mind is blocked (which is the rhetoric of your book). I am simply educated enough to make an intelligent and original choice about my belief system, and it happens to differ from the world's mainstream religions. Ironically your prophets were all men who did this. Buddha did this. None followed convention, and neither should you.



BRAVO !! :-) Well said.

Truth of a higher power is more powerful than any man-made dogma.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Anonymous
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 08:16 am:   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14431097/
Female Iraq vet is home but still haunted
Post-traumatic stress invades daily life years after return from front


Studies show that for many people belief in a higher power is an essential to helping deal with the effects of trauma. The desire to find a purpose and point to existance beyound evolution is a driving force in the human mind. To have the ability to ask the question why and get an answer even if that answer is so complex as to be barely understandable is a basic part of the human condition.

To accept and know that a higher power exists is the first step to enlightenment. To then accept we are so small in comparison to it and that our ability to comprehend it based on our limitations is the second.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 02:29 pm:   

I will not need your sympathy
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:47 pm:Naïve


I never offered any sympathy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 02:32 pm:   

I am simply educated enough to make an intelligent and original choice about my belief system, and it happens to differ from the world's mainstream religions.
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:47 pm: Naïve


The point of Verse 2:256 of the Holy Quran is just that: you are free to follow any belief system of your choice! We are free to follow our belief system.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 02:44 pm:   

Genetics will tell you two people (as per genesis) are not enough to start a viable gene pool. So Adam and his spouse as she is called in the Quran, couldn't have populated the earth.
Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 09:47 pm: Naïve


Are we to understand that the children of one couple today cannot populate a nation centuries from now? Does genetics say there is minimal overlap between brothers and sisters? If so how many out of the 48 genes overlap? I understand that identical twins do have overlap of all the 48 genes at birth. How about non-twins?

Is there any knowledge about the genetic variation between Prophet Adam, peace be upon him, and mother Eve, Allah be pleased with her? How many of their genes overlapped: any scientific proof?

If there is a genetic proof about the non-viability of the claim by the Abrahamic religions, could you give the URL?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 10:41 pm:   

Mohideen,

Unless you start with 2 beings that are genetically perfect, it would be impossible to maintain a "viable" gene pool devoid of serious mutation. Of course you will say "Allah" or "God" made perfect beings in Adam and Eve. Well if so why did they err so? Why were their progeny wiped out by the flood? Imperfection by Allah/God?

Simply type in the words "viable gene pool" to Google and find the information yourself. Look at European nobility that inbred. Move to a deserted region and try to start a new nation. In all these cases you will find "2 people" is not a viable gene pool!

You also mention Quran 2:256. Does it apply to polytheistic religions? Idol worshippers? Atheists? What will be their fate?

In the meantime, if we are to examine the "evolutionary" aspects of reason, I would venture to say that the development of religion was due to the lack of cultural and scientific information in premodern societies. If you can provide the URL that "shows" that Prophet Mohammed correctly intuited the info he received from Angel Gabriel I will be impressed. From the standpoint of human reasoning, I would like to know how you can trust that Mohammed's interpretations of his divine intercourse with Gabriel was correct. For example, why didn't Gabriel say, "Look Humans, treat all other humans with respect." or "All life is precious" or for that matter why didn't he give Mohammed a cure for cancer or the answer to the Unified field problem or toilet paper or antibiotics or electricity?

Logic dictates that religion was a primitive attempt of the uncultured human mind to find a simple solution to problems it was not informed enough to grapple with. At one point this worked well for orderly interactions among men, but now it has become a most serious detriment to our growth.

I am not arrogant enough to say I have even some of the answers, but what I will say we (You too Mohideen) are too intelligent and informed to cling to the ideas of our forefathers simply because it was pushed into our minds from birth. Mohideen were you born a believer of your faith? No. You were socialized. Why are most believers of any faith believers? Because their culture taught them and then put pressure on them to be so. Very few individuals exist who first went on a spiritual journey, comparing all faiths, and then logically picked one. In society we don't give licenses to people until they learn to drive. So too you should not be allowed to say you know the face of God's intentions without objective examination of the reasoning which led to the formation of other faiths and lines of thinking. First examine the road which brought you to your current thinking, then make argument.

Ironically (as this tread is supposed to examine) the very flaws inherent in human reasoning today came from the nonempirical leaps of faith that religion empowers its adherents to make. Science is not perfect either, but it is a start in the right direction. It is simply a more advanced "language" than its more archaic predecessor - Religion!

Man has now "evolved" (if only culturally and historically) a new means with which to attack problems and mysteries at hand. The reason: the old methods were not providing sufficient answers. I will never discount the superior ethical messages in religion. They were the precursors of our laws. However each society can move towards an evolution of those laws. Your line of thinking is in stasis and is nontolerant of this. Thus we see why there is such chaos currently surrounding it. I wish nothing but the best for those human beings trapped on that "branch" of human reasoning evolution. I only wish they would wish the same for themselves.

Good Luck,

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:14 am:   

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/21/dark.matter/
===
Given what's known, this is the makeup of the universe:
• 5 percent normal matter
• 25 percent dark matter
• 70 percent dark energy
Dark energy is an even more mysterious phenomenon, a force of some sort that beats out gravity and is causing the universe to expand at an ever-faster pace.
… It is still possible there is some modification of gravity going on, but these findings make it less necessary to have such theories, said Sean Carroll, a cosmologist at the University of Chicago who was not involved with the study. "No matter what you do [in devising new theories] you're going to have to believe in dark matter."
===

See this also.
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=13&from_verse=2&to_ve rse=2&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1&show_shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&s how_mkhan=1

Notice the statement by Sean Carroll: You’re going to have to believe in dark matter.

Muslims do not deny science. They feel science is part of their faith; science does not invalidate their faith.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:20 am:   

why didn't he give Mohammed a cure for cancer …
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Naïve


Please see:
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=cumin&translator=1&search=1& book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

God Almighty indeed gave the cure for all diseases except death to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:31 am:   

for that matter why didn't he give Mohammed … toilet paper
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Naïve


Toilet paper costs money; it is not accessible to all. See

http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=pebbles+relieve&translator=3 &search=1&book=&start=0&records_display=10&search_word=all

Pebbles are found in most places and even the poor could clean themselves using the pebbles. Notice that rain cleanses the pebbles and thus one could always collect clean pebbles for use.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:35 am:   

Unless you start with 2 beings that are genetically perfect, it would be impossible to maintain a "viable" gene pool devoid of serious mutation. Of course you will say "Allah" or "God" made perfect beings in Adam and Eve.
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Naïve


Thanks for agreeing that there are certain conditions under which just two people could start a viable gene pool.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 06:51 am:   

Why were their progeny wiped out by the flood?
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Naïve


Their progeny were not wiped out by the flood. Prophet Noah, peace be upon him, did save a few believers in the Ark and their progeny populated the earth. Please see:
http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=11&from_verse=36&to_v erse=44&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_yusufali=1

The above Verses do establish that a male and a female is enough to establish a viable gene pool among non-human species. We do not know the number of couples that believed. However it is not expected to be very large. Thus one of the reasons of the flood might be to teach us that a viable gene pool does not require a large number of sources.

As regards searching the Internet and understanding the current reasoning of mankind on this topic of viable gene pool I might do so at a later date.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 07:28 am:   

You also mention Quran 2:256. Does it apply to polytheistic religions? Idol worshippers? Atheists? What will be their fate?
Posted on Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 07:41 pm: Naïve


Yes, 2:256 includes every one. The fate of the believers and non-believers would be decided on the Day of Judgment. Many among the so called believers are expected to enter Hell; many among the so called non-believers are expected to enter Heaven. See article – 3. Is Allah unjust? – in my blog http://deentech.spaces.live.com/

You might just see the following Tradition also:
http://www.searchtruth.com/searchHadith.php?keyword=white+necklaces+Paradise&tra nslator=1&search=1&book=&start=0&search_word=all&records_display=10
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 05:01 pm:   

In the bibilical genesis and in Quran, the Devil/Iblis is allowed by God to have influence over humanity. In the garden of Eden the devil used a truth (eat from the tree of knowledge and you will know what God has hidden) to cause man's fall from paradise [Sura 7:20].

If Allah permits this much latitude [Sura 7:14-22] to Iblis then perhaps Angel Gabriel did not inspire the Quran at all. Perhaps Iblis came to Mohammed and made small perversions of truth in order to cloud the minds of men. In the above Suras this is exactly what Iblis said he would do.

After all Mohideen you have said there are many warmongers within your own faith. And I am still wondering how Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek" is a prophet of a faith that says meet aggression with equal aggression.

It seems the original words of Jesus have been omitted and replaced with a message which is now leading to the world's number one political problem.

By the way I do believe the Quran has many beautiful and positive messages. I just offer this theory as a possibility. I know the reality is that it is men who misinterpret the Quran and give it a bad name. I also offer this possibility to demonstrate the danger of having faith in the word of one man (even if he thought he was hearing the word of God and had the purest of intentions)!

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 07:17 pm:   


quote:

And I am still wondering how Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek" is a prophet of a faith that says meet aggression with equal aggression.


I wondered on this myself. I take it to mean that "turning the other cheek" is an extreme act of forgiveness. But that 'forgiveness' is itself an extreme act of giving, like in gift-giving, to forgive. This 'giving' however does not invalidate the right to stop coercion, with coercion if necessary, as I see 'coercion' the opposite of giving, and forgiving. Anyway, that's my take on it.

On the other, the Quran may have beautiful passages in it, but it also has very mis-guided passages as well. Did Mohammed misunderstand something, when the knowledge was given to him, or was it later misinterpreted by what men though they heard Mohammed say? That cannot be resolved by anyone outside the faith, I fear, but must be tackled by their scholars. Personally, I think the word "misinterpretation" fits, but don't know if it applies to God's word or men's words. My faith transcends the words of any one man, or many men, because I think we have the mental capacity to find truth for ourselves. Especially onerous is the alleged 'truth' that men may kill others in the name of God. I think this is a real red flag, a positive error. We cannot give life to another, nor should we be allowed to take it away. To kill, in any sense, is murder; though murder may be excused in self-defense, it can never to applied to religious pursuits, to do God's will. I think this is a fundamental error in the Mohammedan teachings. Those surahs, in my opinion, should be struck from the record. Coercion, especially enslavement, rape, killings, should never be condoned by an 'evolved' human species capable of consciousness in their pursuit of the truth.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 12:47 am:   

My point exactly. There are too may ways any divine message can be misinterpreted or warped to the advantage of those who claim to be its worldly representative. This is what drove me to search for my own understanding of the divine. Many religions have a sort of prejudice inherent within them towards any other powerful message, any other faith. Its like a competition for followers and thus for the control of the minds of men.

One early teaching I have been impressed with was that of the ancient Hindus. They had a system of mental conditioning that actually improved the working state of the brain. Broken down to its basic teachings Yoga was designed to center the mind through:

1. Breathing exercises and elimination of worldly desires in order to stabilize thoughts.
2. Postures and muscle control to gain mastery of involuntary body systems.
3. Meditation in order to gain superior focus on a subject.

Modern study shows that Kundalini Yoga (which involves a combination of the above in order to raise energy from the chakras to the brain) actually works by creating something of a biofeedback loop. We know the brain works through neural connections for memory and higher processing, so it stands to reason that a master of Yoga (one who can raise this "energy" into the brain) will activate more brain connectivity. This does happen. It is no wonder that the ancient Hindus achieved so many scientific milestones.

Interestingly, there is no historical record of when they first discovered (or were given) this knowledge. But their earliest recorded usage does predate the Abrahamic religions by centuries.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 01:22 am:   

When I read about the workings of Ed's mind, I sometimes think about this brain issue. Einstein was supposed to have more brain connectivity. It seems Ed is another of these unique individuals. I honestly believe developing individuals with this ability should be the focus of our educational system. In essence, instead of teaching facts, we would be teaching individuals techniques that will allow them to improve all cognitive functioning (memory, visualization, theoretical conceptualization, mathematical processing, etc.).

I wonder, if Ed was ever privy to information about our government looking into these or other ancient techniques to improve brain function. And what possible application might they have used them for, if they have?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:15 am:   

As regards searching the Internet and understanding the current reasoning of mankind on this topic of viable gene pool I might do so at a later date.
Posted on Tuesday, August 22, 2006 - 03:51 am: Mohideen Ibramsha


A few minutes back I did a search on – viable gene pool – in Google and got the following as the first URL.

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may99/926380864.Ge.r.html

The above has given assumed calculations for about 5 generations to show that mutations accumulate. There is an assumption that more mutations lead to fatality.

I find the following drawbacks in the analysis:

1. In logic circuits we normally start with error-free circuits. Then we move to analysis of single faults. We do consider analysis of double faults, but say that some set of double faults cannot be detected by Input – Output observation only as the faults mutually cancel each other. Examples of such mutually canceling faults are one that adds a 1 to the result and another that subtracts a 1 from the result. By analogy, I expect that some mutations of a mutant gene would simply restore the gene to its original healthy state. Given this possibility the assumption that the mutations continue to accumulate is wrong.

The fact that some grandchild resembles a grandparent much more than the parent gives credence to the possibility that genes could self-repair across generations.

2. In the example starting with non-perfect Jack and Jill, the generations increase as below: 1 pair; 5 pairs; 20 pairs; 90 pairs; 400 pairs; and 1900 pairs. Shall we say that the number of mating pairs quadruple across a generation?

What about the mutants? Third generation has 2 people with one mutant; fourth 6 people with one mutant; fifth 30 people with one mutant and 1 with two mutants. Let us say that the number of mutants increases by one every third generation. That is for every 64 increase in the size of the mating pool, one more mutation is added. Jack and Jill started with 5 mutant genes. For the perfect couple of Adam and Eve having started with zero mutants, to get one child with 8 mutants (say natural death at birth) takes 4 to the power of 12, that is 16,777,216 mutating pairs. Are we talking about a death rate of less than one in ten million at birth? We are no where near that. The implication is that death takes away the bad partner and thus the resulting gene pool has a limit on the number of mutations. Theoretically just one pair is enough to sustain a viable pool.

I am a computer scientist. May be a geneticist could throw some light?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:38 am:   

And I am still wondering how Jesus, who said "turn the other cheek" is a prophet of a faith that says meet aggression with equal aggression.
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 02:01 pm: Naïve


Turning the other cheek is passive; applying ointment to the hand that struck you is active.

See http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=41&from_verse=34&to_v erse=34&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_s hakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

The recommended retribution to violence is to do some good to the perpetrator. Such a retaliation calls for extreme benevolence. The worst retaliation is to cause equal injury and no more. No disproportionate retaliation. No killing of thousands for a mere death of 3 and the capture of 2.

Why cannot Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them, be a Prophet of Isl*m, the religion of peace?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:45 am:   

To kill, in any sense, is murder; though murder may be excused in self-defense, it can never to applied to religious pursuits, to do God's will.
Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 04:17 pm: Ivan


To punish a murderer by death avoids future murders. That is like using coercion to remove coercion.

Isl*m permits jihad only in self defense. It is unfortunate that an act of self defense is projected as an offence by some who are desirous of establishing a tyranny over the whole world. Before any objection is raised, let me repeat the Dar-Al-Isl*m is the Arabian Peninsula alone.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:50 pm:   

Human Beings are not logic circuits, therefore the comparison is not appropriate.

How can you ignore the extensive fossil record and current variety of animal species that point to natural selection and evolution. A higher power indeed is responsible for our creation, but the science involved in this creation cannot be denied. You are only prepared to accept science that comes from your book, yet equally prepared to criticize or disprove science that conflicts with it. Do you ever really listen to yourself attempting to rationalize the irrational? Would you teach your kids this way of thinking in regards to any nonreligious topic? For example when did Jesus say apply ointment? He said, "love thine enemy"! Your injected comparison does not mesh!

Here's a question: If current science discovered an indisputable fact which conflicted with your faith, what would you do? Most religions either attempt an after the fact reinterpretation of their text to match the discovery, or call the discovery the devil's work. I hope you would be big enough to admit your book was wrong.

Speaking of the devil, you never addressed my assertion about the possibility of Angel Gabriel not being the giver of recitation to Mohammed! Using your own style of logic, I asserted that Iblis came to Mohammed as he said he would to confound man (Sura 7:14-22). You cannot disprove it! You can't say Iblis is not permitted to say the utterances in the Quran (if he himself was the author of it). You cannot say Allah would not permit this (see Sura 7:14-22) because he never stopped Iblis after Iblis said he would attempt to confound man!

Do you not see the danger in putting all of your "faith" into a 1,300 year old message, and then defending it with metaphorical logic?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:06 am:   

P.S. Why is "The religion of peace" one of the only major world religions/spiritualities to O.K. violence? Buddhism violence? No. Christianity had crusades, but in the Bible does it say Holy War O.K.? No. Hinduism? Some sects won't even kill a fly! Don't call it the religion of peace until the passages of violence are removed. And by the way, why would God EVER promote any type of violence amongst his creations?

Can you please answer my other question regarding whether you were born into your faith or chose it after years of learning and discovery? You seem to only argue the points that can be addressed with metaphorically weak logic.

Thanks,

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 03:38 pm:   

Last night while looking out to the goat constellation, I was visited with a pure revelation!

I was instructed to begin a new faith by the Angel of Goats!

A voice from the cosmos told me in order to foster world peace and human growth, all peoples should say "goat" six times, six times a day. We must then do 60 push ups at exactly 6:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. On the sixth day of the week we are required to eat 6 meals of 6 carrots, 6 bananas, 6 squirrels, 6 hot dogs, 6 egg rolls, and 6 shots of tequila.

I could not question the voice or raise opposition, but was simply required to repeat what it said. I don't know if this is really the answer to all human problems, I can't even guarantee that the voice was not some malevolent being, but I am willing to try it (and follow without question). After all, if I heard a voice in my head, it must be Goat's will.


"Goat-Goat-Goat-Goat-Goat-Goat!"

P.S. I am now a prophet of the one true faith! Anyone who does not follow this faith will turn into a goat after six days.

Six be with you,

Prophet Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 03:56 pm:   

Human Beings are not logic circuits, therefore the comparison is not appropriate.
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Naïve


http://psyche.uthct.edu/shaun/SBlack/geneticd.html
===
DNA is a two-stranded molecule. Each strand is a polynucleotide composed of A (adenosine), T (thymidine), C (cytidine), and G (guanosine) residues polymerized by "dehydration" synthesis in linear chains with specific sequences.

… At each nucleotide residue along the double-stranded DNA molecule, the nucleotides are complementary. That is, A forms two hydrogen-bonds with T; C forms three hydrogen bonds with G.

… An example of two complementary strands of DNA would be:
(5' -> 3') ATGGAATTCTCGCTC (Coding, sense strand)
(3' <- 5') TACCTTAAGAGCGAG (Template, antisense strand)
===

As I understand the strands make two copies by splitting so that the coding strand and the template strand become separate. Then the complementary residue attaches forming two copies. I do not expect a mutation to occur in a DNA molecule. The mutation possibly occurs after the two strands separate and before the complementary nucleotide attaches. Let us consider the coding strand above. Let there be a mutation on the fifth position from the right. The fifth code is A. It could be changed to either of C, G, or T. Assuming equally probable events, each of the following mutations are of equal probability:
1. ATGGCATTCTCGTC; 2. ATGGGATTCTCGCTC and 3. ATGGTATTCTCGCTC. When a second mutation takes place on 1 in the fifth position changing the C to A, we get the original sequence. Similarly the mutation of changing the G to A in the fifth location of 2 gives the original. So for 3 also.

I used logic circuits just to illustrate the concept of compensating mutations or faults.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:00 pm:   

For example when did Jesus say apply ointment?
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Naïve


I do not know whether Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them said “Apply ointment.” I said it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:06 pm:   

If current science discovered an indisputable fact which conflicted with your faith, what would you do?
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Naïve


Thank you for informing that current science has as on date no indisputable fact that contradicts with my religion. Thanks indeed.

I do not answer hypothetical questions. I always used to say this to my friends: “I think and plan to cross a bridge when I am at one end of the bridge and I desire to cross it. Until I reach the end of the bridge, I do not waste my time thinking about crossing the bridge.”
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:12 pm:   

you never addressed my assertion about the possibility of Angel Gabriel not being the giver of recitation to Mohammed!
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Naïve


What has your assertion got to do with the discussion on evolution? Please see the announcement by Humancafe at the start of this thread. I like to keep this thread focused on evolution and nothing else. I talked about the flood just to show that even a pair is enough to start a viable gene pool in the animal world too.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:17 pm:   

Do you not see the danger in putting all of your "faith" into a 1,300 year old message, and then defending it
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 08:50 pm: Naïve


Do not forget the fact that the Message has acquired quite a few followers. As regards the points you have made I might answer them if you start a separate thread. Let us not clutter this thread. Evolution is a beautiful topic. Let us not mix the validity or futility of my religion in it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:22 pm:   

Why is "The religion of peace" one of the only major world religions/spiritualities to O.K. violence?
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:06 pm: Naïve


It does not approve of violence; it approves self preservation. Any species that does not defend itself from its predator is bound to perish. If defense results in bloodshed so be it.

Coercion could be used to eliminate coercion.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:26 pm:   

why would God EVER promote any type of violence amongst his creations?
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:06 pm: Naïve


God does not. You claim that God promotes violence. So the onus of proof is on you.

God has instilled self preservation. Is not self preservation one of the basic points of evolution: the survival of the fittest?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:33 pm:   

Can you please answer my other question regarding whether you were born into your faith or chose it after years of learning and discovery?
Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 09:06 pm: Naïve


Please concentrate on the message than the messenger. Look at what I say rather than what I am.

Having said that, my father who studied my religion for 12 years and became qualified to be an Imam never coerced me regarding the religion. He practiced the art of being an Imam for a while but then chose civil service and obeyed our religion in his life. My religion is out of self study and discussions with friends of other religions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:36 pm:   

I was instructed to begin a new faith by the Angel of Goats!
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:38 pm: Naïve


Go ahead! My best wishes. By virtue of 2:256 of the Holy Quran you are free to do this business of beginning a new faith.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 04:39 pm:   

Six be with you,

Prophet Naïve
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 12:38 pm: Naïve


Dear Prophet Naïve, Shall we leave theology for some other thread and get back to evolution, genetics and the like? Please!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 09:13 pm:   

Excellent Mohideen,

Your patience is magnificient, and I am quite impressed that you never resort to disrespect. I appreciate your determination and faith, and I do have a lot of respect for religion. I simply wish that neither religion or science or any branch of information make assertions of perfection. You are obviously an intelligent individual, and my examples are not meant to be mockery. Rather they are indeed about the evolution of reason, whether it be cultural or biological. Here's how:

The cognitive process is overwhelmingly affected by socialization, and socialization is part of culture. Now when a particular cultural is uniformly guided by one set of dogmatic rules, you end up getting homogenous thinking. This kind of thinking led to witch hunts, racism, genocide, etc. in the past. This kind of thinking blocks human evolution (see below).

We have only made leaps and bounds in technologies and sciences because of the move away from such static religious practice. True the message of religion can help guide us as we learn to temper technological progress with ethics. But at what price? Does humanity have to suffer because one group wants to assert the dominance of its ideaology over another?

This is indeed about human evolution. Our gene pool is now too large and diverse for dramatic new changes to our phenotype. We are not going to change unless by means of our own engineering, or significant environmental catastrophe. Therefore evolution of thought and mind will only happen as we all inch forward in the quest for intelligent cooperation and understanding. Anything (science, law, or religion) that stands in the way of that goal is detrimental to the beautiful topic of human evolution.

I feel you do not fully appreciate the dangerous cultural dynamics involved in this topic. Or more correctly, faith has biased your reasoning. This is not theology! To me it is simply a discussion of culture. Religion is nothing more than a cultural construct. Every ancient faith of the past has turned to myth eventually, and as they did the culture from which they arose changed dramtically.

The worldwide battle surrounding ideas of faith, science, economy, and politics is our total human culture trying to resolve itself in fits and starts. Unfortunately, those with power often attempt to provoke each other in order to covertly inject their ideological, political, and economic agenda. This is similar to the animal kingdom where males spar for Alpha dominance. The truly evolved human will teach their progeny about this cultural phenomena and seek to eradicate the behavior it inspires.

What is needed is uniform respect across the world, without uniform thinking. How to achieve this? I wish I knew. On the other hand, any ideology which seeks or claims to be the way to salvation, the answer, the ultimate guide of behavior, the judge of humanity, the most perfect message of God, etc. - cannot, is not, will never be good for human evolutionary progress. If you can show me otherwise I'll be happy. This means show me how you can get rid of the dangerous rhetoric, divine ultimatum, and cultural homogeneity involved in religion. This is why wars have been fought, why fanatics are born.

Remember too, evolution can be harsh. Those with power are pushing an agenda which says, "Far better to eradicate the dictionary of language which leads to the formation of dangerous fanatics, than to suffer extinction at its hands." Self-perservation (as you mentioned) is one of the inherent tenets of evolution. This message is coming from both camps of the current world problem, and as the problem escalates, neither side will emerge unscathed.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 07:29 am:   

What is needed is uniform respect across the world, without uniform thinking.
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 06:13 pm: Naïve


May be I did not make myself clear. Isl*m recognizes evolution. Evolution is part and parcel of the design of the universe made by God. See http://www.searchtruth.com/search.php?keyword=primal+origin&translator=2&search= 1&start=0 giving 2:117 and 6:101 where God claims the authorship of the state of the universe just before the big bang. Just to ensure that we are not looking at an artifact of translation from Arabic to English please see the following URLs where the translation by many are given. The meaning is same.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=117&to_v erse=117&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_ shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=6&from_verse=101&to_v erse=101&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_ shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

Some claim that God created the universe in six days and took rest on the seventh day. Isl*m does not claim so. Many Verses of the Holy Quran attest to the fact that God regulates the affairs. One Verse is special to Muslims: 2:255 called Ayat-Al-Kursee which many recite before going to bed. Notice that this Verse is just before Verse 2:256 which gives freedom of faith. See the translations of 2:255 below.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=255&to_v erse=255&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_ shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

Is there an example of such a regulation? Yes, it is the creation of mankind. What is special about mankind: the power to create names so that new concepts could be communicated succinctly. This is my understanding of Verses 2:31 to 2:33 shown in the URL below.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=31&to_ve rse=33&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

How could there be uniform thinking if we are to create newer and newer concepts? Isl*m does not require uniform thinking. It does require that we agree to disagree but coexist helping each other on all aspects in which we do agree.

I must indicate a part of my life. I came to Isl*m in 1984 after I got my Ph.D. in 1974. So God protected my mind from getting conditioned by the religious teachers. My father took me to a Madrassa when I was five years old. I asked the Imam who offered to teach me the Holy Quran whether he would teach me to understand it. His reply was that he would teach me to read it and recite it. I declined. My father did not coerce me. To date I am seeking a teacher who would teach me Arabic as it should be taught. I hope I do come across such a teacher before my eyes close permanently.

There is just one small but crucial difference between Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the position of Isl*m with respect to evolution. Darwin is said to have claimed just one seed of evolution. Isl*m claims that there are two or possibly more seeds of evolution. Two seeds we identify: one seed for mankind and another seed for all life on earth other than mankind.

There is evolution even among mankind: the skin color. People from hot climates have black skin that offers protection from UV, while people from cold climate have white skins that seem to offer very little protection from UV. The reason for that is possibly because until the release of CFCs into the atmosphere that destroys ozone, the regions of cold climate possibly received very little UV in the sun light. Yes the skin of the people of the cold climate would also develop resistance to UV possibly across a few generations.

We are on the same boat with respect to evolution with a minor disagreement as to the number of seeds.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 07:36 am:   

Those with power are pushing an agenda which says, "Far better to eradicate the dictionary of language which leads to the formation of dangerous fanatics, than to suffer extinction at its hands."
Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 06:13 pm: Naïve


Right: I prefer to die a natural death or death fighting oppression but not death at the hands of an oppressor.

If I understand the dictionary to be Isl*m, having known through blind or reasoned faith that Isl*m cannot be changed, I prefer to inculcate the correct understanding of Isl*m that there is ‘no global conquest.’

Muslims have no business to become the policemen of the whole world. Their business is to simply say what is good and what is bad. Is not that another interpretation of ‘freedom of speech?’
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 11:05 am:   

Are we on the verge of the next jump in evolution?

http://newsroom.spie.org/x3865.xml
===
In the long term, CMOL technology might be applied to mixed-signal neuromorphic networks, or CrossNets, with the objective of becoming the first hardware capable of challenging the human cerebral cortex in density and far exceeding it in speed, at comparable component functionality.
===

Human brain at electronic speed?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 07:51 pm:   


quote:

Muslims have no business to become the policemen of the whole world. Their business is to simply say what is good and what is bad. Is not that another interpretation of ‘freedom of speech?’


NO, Mohideen, it is not a 'freedom of speech', if those who speak against it are threatened with punishment or death.

quote:

I prefer to die a natural death or death fighting oppression but not death at the hands of an oppressor.


Because Muslims are not free to challenge or question, or speak freely, about their religion, under penalty of ... including death, then it is they who are 'at the hands of an oppressor', from their own. In your world, the so called 'fanatics' rule at present, and you are powerless to stop them. You are cowed instead into silence and submission. My pity for your oppressive philosophy.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 07:21 am:   

You are cowed instead into silence and submission. My pity for your oppressive philosophy.
Posted on Monday, August 28, 2006 - 04:51 pm: Ivan


Really? The one who has – possibly for the first time – stated that the dress of a woman is as decided by her keeping in mind her security – is cowed into silence?

Incidentally how is this connected with ‘evolution?’ Are we talking about this topic because culture influences evolution?

Have we addressed the basic issue that opened the thread: the reason for the menstrual period coinciding with the lunar month for the women in contrast to other species?

Have we resolved whether evolution has just a single seed or it might as well have multiple seeds?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 06:55 pm:   


quote:

Really? The one who has – possibly for the first time – stated that the dress of a woman is as decided by her keeping in mind her security – is cowed into silence?

Incidentally how is this connected with ‘evolution?’ Are we talking about this topic because culture influences evolution?

Have we addressed the basic issue that opened the thread: the reason for the menstrual period coinciding with the lunar month for the women in contrast to other species?


Women are contrasted to males, if that could be considered another species, at least in how women are treated in some societal settings. I remember when visiting the outback Aborigines that women were never allowed to touch, nor even look at, the sacred symbols of their shamanistic Dreamtime. Is this because they menstruate? I would put the "evolution" of your religious beliefs about on par with that of the Australian Aborigines, to be respected as such for their difference from ours, but far from being on par with ours. Women are not some different species worth only half a man. Evolved human cultures treat all human beings with equality.

On another topic of women, where they are not treated as an equal species to men, here is the latest proposal from the Arabian Peninsula: Saudi clerics want to restrict women praying at Mecca. I sincerely hope Arabian women will resist this latest change to their "unchangeable - so it is written" belief system. Prayer is of equal importance to both men and women, as they are not some different species from each other. Nor should women have a specially restrictive dress code, anymore than men should. Evolution is being able to recognize the value and freedom of each human being, who has a mind, to have the ability and consciousness to choose what is right for them. This applies to men and women equally, in that they are not a different species, except within the context of ignorant primitive ideology. It is time for change, even in the "unchangeable" theocratic theories of male-female human species, especially as it appears the top brass of Mecca are not too adverse to change the "rules of the game" as it suits them. I would hope there could be some evolution even within the ranks of primitive ideologies.

BTW, the "silence" referred to in the above is not anyone's silence telling us about it, but in their silence telling their own, which they fear for being branded blasphemous or worse, apostates.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 07:44 pm:   

La Donna Mobile! :-)

nz005.jpg

Who said women are not equal to men? Actually, women are evolutionarily smarter!

How many men do you know who can create another human being?

Le Chef egale
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 09:28 pm:   

Very funny Le Chef, I'll remember that next time I float one of my 'theories' before a member of the opposite sex!

Here's something I found in my lost file, about Equality of Women, evolved or unevolved, hard to say:

""When a wife vexes her husband, then houris of paradise utter curses on her saying, 'may Allah destroy you because he is with you only for a short time; he will shortly leave you to come to us.'"

http://www.studytoanswer.net/myths_ch9.html

I wonder if everybody gets the same 72 houris, not at the same time I hope?

(I'll fix your dupe post, obviously posted by a 'man'. :-) )
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:33 pm:   

BTW, the "silence" referred to in the above is not anyone's silence telling us about it, but in their silence telling their own, which they fear for being branded blasphemous or worse, apostates.
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 03:55 pm: Ivan


Isn’t this an open forum? Aren’t there Muslims visiting these sites?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:15 am:   

On another topic of women, where they are not treated as an equal species to men, here is the latest proposal from the Arabian Peninsula: Saudi clerics want to restrict women praying at Mecca. I sincerely hope Arabian women will resist this latest change to their "unchangeable - so it is written" belief system.
Posted on Tuesday, August 29, 2006 - 03:55 pm: Ivan


What is unchangeable is the Holy Quran and the authentic Traditions. From the URL referred to above (http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060828/3/2p31e.html ):
===
At present, women can pray in the immediate vicinity of the Kaaba, a cube-shaped structure inside the mosque which pilgrims walk around seven times during the haj pilgrimage according to ancient rites established by Prophet Mohammad.

Plans by the all-male committee overseeing the holy sites would place women in a distant section of the mosque while men would still be able to pray in the key space.

… The decision is not final and could be reversed, he added.
===

Let us hope that the decision indeed gets reversed and the women do continue to pray in the key space as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 12:22 am:   

""When a wife vexes her husband, then houris of paradise utter curses on her saying, 'may Allah destroy you because he is with you only for a short time; he will shortly leave you to come to us.'"
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 06:28 pm: Ivan


How about a new thread on the topic of equality of sexes in Isl*m?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 01:09 am:   


quote:

How about a new thread on the topic of equality of sexes in Isl*m?


Mohideen, you are very welcome to start one. I don't know if our readers will necessarily join in, since many are forum 'wall flowers', but that's okay. The important thing is that information gets passed around, and maybe from that some things may actually become better understood. The topic of women, whether addressing their equality in Isl*m or society at large, would be a good topic, in my opinion. Perhaps this may bring more women to participation, which had been rare here. But all ideas, though perhaps challenged, even severely, are truly welcome. That's how we evolve in our thinking, and in our ideas.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 01:22 am:   


quote:

Isn’t this an open forum? Aren’t there Muslims visiting these sites?


Yes, open. And I hope so, even if they only pass by to read what is being said. Really, all people are welcome without exclusivity. The only ones deleted are those who come to 'advertise' or blog-spam, for which we have nearing-zero tolerance.

Think of this forum as an 'open road' and we don't know where it's going to go. Sometimes it surprises us no end, other times it's a dead end. That's the thrill of exploration, even just exchanging points of view. And if some misbehave, there will be warnings. Who knows where this will go? The risk is the rush. So all are welcome, of all religions, and points of view. Writers and readers over the years have come and gone, but what stays behind are their thoughts and insights, for as long as Humancafe can exist. I hope it will be a long time, archived if closed, but always available to read.

Really, to all who come here, thank you.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, August 31, 2006 - 11:38 am:   

Mohideen, you are very welcome to start one.
Posted on Wednesday, August 30, 2006 - 10:09 pm: Ivan


Ivan thanks for the suggestion. I have started “Are women equal to men?” Let us hope we do resolve some issues related to this topic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 - 09:40 am:   

We are on the same boat with respect to evolution with a minor disagreement as to the number of seeds.
Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 04:29 am: Mohideen Ibramsha


It looks like there are indeed two seeds. The tree that possibly started with the ameba has terminated with the Neanderthals and we are the new seed. Please see:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14737491/?GT1=8506
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 01:39 am:   

The Religious Brain.

Amil Imani wrote an insightful piece on the psychological makeup of a Religious Brain, something that can be programmed for the good or for evil behavior. In modern terms, it is programmed to either bring personal joy and acceptance of others in a holistic agreement with humanity, or it rejects personal joy in its coerciveness towards others of humanity: good and evil. We are faced with a growing drift towards evil dominating the good, or coercions dominating humanity's agreements, when faced with Islamic Jihad. Tolerance is a modern art of joyful interaction and acceptance of the other, which takes courage; while intolerance is a joyless rejection of the other, which is based on fear of the other. One wonders how children who turn into intolerant adults are treated by their parents, siblings, schoolmates, or later social millieu or even the imams, to make them so dour against others? What do they become afraid of?

Also see a corollary to this idea posted today: Modern Mind and 'Classical Mind', where two vastly different modes of reason operate in defining for us what is 'truth'. Where one system is all inclusive within the scriptures of holy text, the other is all encompassing within the universal reality within which we exist. Yet from childhood, given enough indoctrination and social input, both can become reality for any one mind, though both are opposites. The contest between these two 'truths' may yet be the greatest battle of mind humanity had ever known. Which will become known as 'failed reason' generations from now? The good of our emotion based 'religious brain' must win this one, or evolution of mind may take a giant step back.

And we are here, to witness this, a kind of mind 'end of days'. What a joy, and a gift, if we live enough to survive it! :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Tuesday, November 07, 2006 - 12:21 am:   

Every dog's had his day, until now :-)

nz170.jpg

The religious brain is ossified. Stuck with that leg up the itch? Can't scratch no more? A good dose of cortizone to get up a run again, fresh like a young pup, happy and joyful to see the face of the master. Scratch that itch, believe!


Le joyful Chef


-thanks to our friends at www.nearingzero.net-
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 01:36 pm:   

Amil Imani wrote an insightful piece on the psychological makeup of a Religious Brain
Posted on Saturday, October 28, 2006 - 01:39 am: Ivan


The link given for ‘Religious Brain’ http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=593 has the following:
===
The surprising part of the study is that while the confirmation bias was at work, the brain areas ordinarily associated with rational decision-making were inactive. By contrast, an elaborate network of brain structures that process emotion and conflicts were highly activated. In short, confirmation bias has its own brain resources that shunt out the reasoning parts in order to protect the already in-place beliefs and preferences.
===

The above is truly unfortunate. If we are preprogrammed to reject contrary evidences, we are doomed. We are not going to win the masses indoctrinated by the Mullahs. Are we? The Holy Quran has a suggestion.

http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=16&from_verse=125&to_ verse=125&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show _shakir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1

Quoting one translation, we have:
===
M. Khan 16:125
Invite (mankind, O Muhammad SAW) to the Way of your Lord (i.e. Islam) with wisdom (i.e. with the Divine Inspiration and the Quran) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, your Lord knows best who has gone astray from His Path, and He is the Best Aware of those who are guided.
===

We are to argue in a way that is better. Better than what? Better than the ‘Confirmation Bias’ so that the brain circuits related to reasoning get activated. So we are not doomed with respect to violent Jihad. We know that our job is tough; still it could be done!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, November 11, 2006 - 11:06 pm:   

We can do both, objective and subjective, if trained right.


quote:

"The surprising part of the study is that while the confirmation bias was at work, the brain areas ordinarily associated with rational decision-making were inactive. By contrast, an elaborate network of brain structures that process emotion and conflicts were highly activated. In short, confirmation bias has its own brain resources that shunt out the reasoning parts in order to protect the already in-place beliefs and preferences."

--from above link on "Religious Brain", referenced in Mohideen's post



This harks back to Linear Reason vs. Holistic Reason, under the "Human Reason has Limits" thread, as well as something in the "Subject, Objective, and Universal" post, where I separated different ways for the mind to reason. Logic and linear reason is how we normally approach problem solving, but there are other forms of reason, perhaps naturally intuitive, where objective logic kicks in only after some deeper insight opens the door into another way of seeing. The subjective form of reason is more like that other part of the mind that is mysterious, the religious mind, though with proper insight, and training, that objective mind does not have to 'shut off' when entering that mysterious subjective mind. I think this happens when we write something creative, or how composers see music, that another part of the brain takes over temporarily, but the rational is not lost entirely in the process. So can it be with the religious mind. Or as Naive expressed here that "Savant's see the world differently from the rest of us," so different parts of the mind can be at work within the same person.

In my above, The Religious Brain, I said this part of the mind can be 'programmed' for good and joy, rather than coercion and evil. This is what I meant, that though a different part of the brain is used in religious connections to something outside reason, it does not have to be totally divorced from it, in the way a writer or composer is not divorced from reason while in the creative act. But this takes training, and in particular, the right kind of training, so that the objective functions of telling the difference between right and wrong, or good and evil, is not sacrificed in a blind manner to the subjective side of the mind. I think it is doable, something the modern mind must learn to do. We can still believe in something truly beyond understanding, but this must not drive us into madness in believe something also totally wrong, or psychotic. We do have reasonable control of our minds, which may be what best defines our consciousness.

Another example is the mind at work while dreaming, as being different from the mind at work while awake, yet both belong to the same person. However, upon waking we know one from the other, while in the dream state we normally do not. Rapture of a religious sort, the kind experienced by fanatics of religion, in effect bordering cult behavior, is more like that dream state over which we have no control. Going into trance, such as I witnessed in my travels in Asia by devotees of the gods*, is another form of dream state, same as intensely believing in magic. Shamans are like that. But we can learn to control this, while still believing in the trance state which may be connecting to some other reality of which we normally cannot see, and yet still be awake as conscious human beings. This, I suspect, is truly the next step of our mind's evolution, when we can experience both, the religious rapture but also the reasoning mind, without sacrificing our objective consciousness. The universe is a very big place, and we are only now becoming aware of this. There are still many mysteries to be unplumbed from the depths of infinity that will involve our mind. This is the future, that we understand the universe at its many levels, from the quantum state to its largest dimensions, not only in terms of physical matter and energy, but also in the states of mind that define really who we are. The trick is to do this without harming ourselves, and others. Then we progress to the next level, though it may take millennia, to become as truly conscious beings.

Mohideen, a millennium from now our descendants will be looking back at us as simple creatures of simple minds, and Jihad as we know it will have been mostly forgotten to history. We're moving on, so not too worried, it will stop.

Ivan

*(When I stayed on Bali, 1989, I was invited to participate in a temple dedication at a small village to the sea god Cigeroos; they dressed me in native dress, the only white man, and had me protect the god being carried on a bier the god's golden statue, I had to hold a parasole over him (to keep evil spirits away) and followed the procession to the sea and back; while we marched to the sound of gamelons, and incense, some of the members of the procession would go into trance and faint or start speaking in tongues, which a priest interpreted; my favorite was when the god demanded more dancing girls, which no doubt kept both me and the god well entertained, since they were very pretty, supple dancers. I loved the experience, though being a westernized man I never lost my head.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 05:51 am:   

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/16/scientists_unveil_beginning s_of_neanderthals_dna_code/?page=2
===
To identify the Neanderthal DNA, the scientists compared the sequence of the DNA pieces they read -- each between about 50 and 150 letters long -- with massive computer libraries of DNA from various species. This allowed them to discard DNA from bacteria and zero in on the segments that most resembled human DNA.
They took a number of technical steps to ensure that they were reading Neanderthal DNA and not human DNA, the scientists said. For example, they were able to see telltale degradation on the DNA molecules, signs of their age.
All told, the team was able to put together about 1 million letters of Neanderthal DNA, according to the paper in Nature. The human genome was used as a guide to place the small pieces. The entire Neanderthal genome is thought to be about 3 billion letters long, the same as for humans.
===

The parallel work has generated about 65,000 letters of the Neanderthal code. At best we have identified 1.065 million letters out of 3 billion letters. That is about 0.0355% of the common code between us and the Neanderthal. Considering that the Neanderthal code was accepted only when it matched the human code, it is indeed a stretch of imagination to claim a common ancestor.

Our question regarding the number of seeds of evolution – just one or two or more – remains unresolved as of now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 06:02 pm:   

Neanderthal DNA matches 99.5% modern humans, if this writer is right: Neanderthal bone gives DNA clues
"Paabo's analysis didn't directly address whether modern humans have DNA from Neanderthals, but it did raise speculation that DNA from anatomically modern humans might have found its way into Neanderthals. Scientists will have to examine more Neanderthal DNA to study that, he said.

Rubin also said analysis so far suggests human and Neanderthal DNA are some 99.5 percent to nearly 99.9 percent identical."

So we may have at least some ancestors in common, if this is right. In fact, I've seen muscles guys at the local fitness center that could fit the picture. :-) But if wolves can mate with coyotes, which they do in the wild, why not modern humans with Neanderthals? Why not? ... If they're in love?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 09:29 am:   

But if wolves can mate with coyotes, which they do in the wild, why not modern humans with Neanderthals?
Posted on Thursday, November 16, 2006 - 06:02 pm: Ivan


Intermixing of genes could happen in many ways. Does the offspring of wolves and coyotes with the mixed genes prove the existence of a common ancestor? Or does it strengthen the possibility that there are multiple seeds to evolution?

On second thoughts we could claim common ancestry only in the absence of interspecies mating.

Consider the following:
http://www.amhersttimes.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3382&Itemi d=27
===
The titillating question has always been whether the lighter-boned modern humans ever mated with the brawny, jut-faced Neanderthals. The preliminary answer is that interbreeding didn’t happen very often, if at all. One study found no evidence of it. The other found a hint of possible hanky-panky, most likely involving human males and Neanderthal females, not the other way around.
===

The above mating between human males and Neanderthal females simply destroys any possibility of ‘proving a common ancestor.’ It possibly implies a war between the two with the victor claiming the female population of the loser.

We are not disputing the possibility of a single ancestor; all that we assert is there is no way to prove that evolution had just one seed. Evolution might have had more than one seed. Does that prove the existence of God? The existence of God is proven through the arrangement of the Chapters of the Holy Quran in http://www.deentech.com/ Since the Holy Quran claims that God created Adam using molding clay and breathed life, the non-provability of the single seed claim of evolution strengthens the claim of ‘Intelligent Design.’
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 10:37 am:   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15784772/site/newsweek/
===
… a team led by Bruce Lahn of the University of Chicago has been investigating a human gene called microcephalin. A statistical analysis of mutations in this gene indicates that its most common form (or allele) evolved as long as 1.1 million years ago, was carried for most of that time by a different hominid species and then was reintroduced into the human population—conceivably even by a single mating—some 37,000 years ago. That's about the time that modern humans, coming from Africa, were replacing Neanderthals in Europe. Whatever that allele does, it must have conveyed a very strong evolutionary advantage, because from that single event of what geneticists politely call "introgression" it spread to 70 percent of the human population today.
===

The reintroduction of the allele some 37,000 years ago could be interpreted in two ways depending on whether we accept ‘Intelligent Design’ or not. In the absence of God the only way genes from two different species could be found in another life is through mating. [It is assumed that eating destroys all genetic information by the time the food enters the blood stream.] However mating is not necessary for those who accept God. Example: the immaculate conception of Prophet Jesus, son of Mary, peace be upon them.

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15784772/site/newsweek/ again:
===
The gene is known to control brain growth, and Lahn says the crucial factor could have been anything from changing head size to make childbirth less risky, to improving energy efficiency in the brain. But one obvious possibility is that, perhaps in combination with genes that humans already possessed, it made them smarter. "I don't buy the stereotype that Neanderthals were dumb," says Henry Harpending, a leading researcher on the genetics of intelligence. "Modern humans came into Europe and encountered Neanderthals and within a few thousand years were making glorious cave paintings, figurines and art. About the same time they show up in Australia [where there were no Neanderthals], and there's not a trace of that."
===

The humans in Europe made glorious cave paintings, figurines and art, whereas the same humans who migrated to Australia showed no trace of cave paintings, figurines and art. Can we say that the humans who migrated to Europe evolved culturally by imitating the Neanderthals?

Why did the Neanderthals develop cave paintings, figurines and art? Assume that we do not have the power to create names for new concepts. What would we do? We would be forced to copy any description fully. How would we describe a new animal that was not sighted so far? Drawing a picture of the animal or making a figurine of that animal would be a lot easier than writing to describe the animal. We infer that the Neanderthals did not have the power of language. They did not create labels or names. However the humans even without the interaction of the Neanderthals in Australia did communicate and prosper. To us the above research finding is a confirmation of Verse 31 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. We are stating the above just to strengthen our claim that evolution has multiple seeds and that humans did not evolve from the animal world.

You might see http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display_all.php?chapter=2&from_verse=31&to_ve rse=31&mac=&translation_setting=1&show_transliteration=1&show_yusufali=1&show_sh akir=1&show_pickthal=1&show_mkhan=1
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 10:55 am:   


quote:

The titillating question has always been whether the lighter-boned modern humans ever mated with the brawny, jut-faced Neanderthals. The preliminary answer is that interbreeding didn’t happen very often, if at all. One study found no evidence of it. The other found a hint of possible hanky-panky, most likely involving human males and Neanderthal females, not the other way around. --from article above



If men can copulate with female goats, then why not modern men copulate with Neanderthal femaies. Bestiality is an ugly reality, and it never results in offsprings because of the species barrier. But where the species are close enough, it might. This is why coyotes in New England are bigger than those of the Western states, because in their migrations north into Canada they copulated with timberwolves, so their offsprings migrating back down into the 48 are larger, and in some ways more striking. Maybe interbreeding leads to new and better. Did this happen with humans 40,000 years ago? That's what the DNA research is trying to find out. If you take an infinite regress of DNA combinations, you are bound to eventually come across one ancestor common to all, in effect a kind of Eve for humankind, which going back far enough, perhaps half a million years, will have another 'Eve' for both modern man and Neanderthal. So species could start with common ancestry, diverge into separate branches, but then again at some future point before they are too divergent, they can recombine into a new species again, such as our New England part-wolf-coyotes. Same for dog mix with wolf, or coyote-dog, so why not modern human with Neanderthal, close enough to mate and have offsprings? Maybe branches of the family tree don't always grow apart, but join together again, more like interweaving of evolution than total separation and extinction.

I wonder if Darwin ever thought about that?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 11:26 am:   


quote:

We infer that the Neanderthals did not have the power of language. They did not create labels or names. However the humans even without the interaction of the Neanderthals in Australia did communicate and prosper. To us the above research finding is a confirmation of Verse 31 of Chapter 2 of the Holy Quran. We are stating the above just to strengthen our claim that evolution has multiple seeds and that humans did not evolve from the animal world. --Mohideen



I don't quite see the connection. Neanderthals may have had language, since their larynx was developed enough to speak, so no real reason to assume they had no language. If genetics are taken back far enough, in an infinite regress, it is of necessity that we have common ancestry, going back to hominid days of Lucy and before, to ape ancestors, and before that to mammalian common ancestors, and predating that all the way back to Earth's first bacteria, which may have hitch-hiked in from space aboard large meteors and comets. So if Quranic scripture does not address these issues, it does not mean they didn't happen, only that the Quran (per your own admission) is not complete. You must remember scientific knowledge in Mohammed's days was very limited in contrast to today's knowledge. So Adam learning words has little to do with common ancestry, as far as I can tell. But maybe you see it differently, which is fine, but like words spoken in radically different languages, it doesn't communicate, at least not to me.

I believe truth is more powerful than belief, and evidence more durable than ancient religious stories. How do you substantiate what words Adam learned, for example, without falling back on belief being greater than truth? Believing in truth is not the same as believing in ancient stories as truth. Do you see the progression here? It is the same with a common ancestry, where evolution leads of necessity to a commonality, while a belief that such commonality cannot be true is merely belief, not scientifically supported as truth. Unless you have real evidence that man and woman sprang magically from some primordial form independent of our connection to all living things of the planet, I take your Quranic stories as just that, stories. You may believe as you wish, no harm, but the only way to accept your belief is to accept your belief, without evidence. My faith is more on the evidence. But then, I'm a modern man. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 08:11 am:   

Unless you have real evidence that man and woman sprang magically from some primordial form independent of our connection to all living things of the planet, I take your Quranic stories as just that, stories.
Posted on Sunday, November 19, 2006 - 11:26 am: Ivan


Evidence is based upon the following crucial assumption. Environment/culture-influenced genetic changes, basically food and society induced changes in DNA, are gradual and thus any gap of more than one letter (or two if we take the mirrored structure of the DNA) is improbable.

We have already posted in this discussion that the gap between the human and the Neanderthal is more than one. So from a probabilistic point of view the hypothesis that evolution has multiple seeds is more reasonable than the claim that all evolution has a single seed.

May I point out that until the genetic changes – one letter at a time – between the Neanderthal and the Human are uncovered, the assumption that all evolution has a single seed is just that: an unsubstantiated assumption!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:03 pm:   

And yet you (Mohideen) believe God breathed life into mud/clay! How unsubstantiated is that? Can you offer proof that this wonderous event happened? What is the science behind this rock solid idea of yours?

So far the best theories are the one postulated by anthropology and genetics. If you deny the genetics, don't deny the body symmetry, the dental similarities, the skeletal similarities.

Life is life and evolution is a process of life. Opposing evolution is nearly as hopeless as believing God magically breathed life into clay (in regards to man), yet seemingly made every other living creature (including man) subject to the same biological processes and composed them of the same organic molecules.

Neanderthals were an archaic homo sapiens. Who knows how long was the divergence between neanderthals and anatomically modern Homo. Mutation is quick (not a gradual process), as is genetic change based upon natural and sexual selection - when environmental pressures are great. Look at it this way: Neanderthals were the hearty, last surviving Archaic Homo Sapiens. Continued interbreeding of a small group of these Archaics, could have produced a variety of genotypic changes, mutation!

We were not there. We don't know what happened. Science helps us infer. It is a best guess. Your model is not even a guess. It is Ancient Human Logic devoid of empirical merit. Furthermore, genetics would place Adam and Eve as Africans (probably related to the San Bushmen). Are you ready to accept Adam and Eve as Africans, or do you want to deny genetic dominance as well? Where does that place Eden?

I want to see the scientific evidence for life made from God's breath and clay. I'm not being sarcastic. Please help me to understand your belief, for it is indeed baffling to me. Verily, you are quite proficient in finding ways to debunk a particular science. Now I want you to look at your own belief system with the same fine tooth comb. I hope you don't fall back on faith as your argument, for then there is no need for you to ever argue using science (an empirical process that does not accept faith as an answer).

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 03:12 pm:   

And yet you (Mohideen) believe God breathed life into mud/clay!
Posted on Monday, November 20, 2006 - 11:03 pm: Naïve


In any research we first attempt to verify whether the current theory explains all facts.

As regards evolution we do not deny it; we agree evolution exists. One school claims there is an intelligent designer who intervenes. Another school claims that there is no intelligent designer but everything develops by ‘survival of the fittest.’ I believe this survival of the fittest school insists that all life has a single seed.

As a first step to understand and develop a better theory of evolution, I look at the data given in this thread. To me – as the data stands – the Neanderthal and the current human race are from separate seeds because the interconnecting links are absent. That is all. My faith has no place in this discussion.

Incidentally since the question of clay has been raised, you or any other expert, may kindly inform us at what stage the carbon atom entered the evolutionary chain? Or did evolution start only after carbon compounds were made quite accidentally?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 07:03 pm:   

Mohideen, your argument regarding evolution of humankind vs. mud and clay suffers from "Argument from ignorance" which is a logical fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false only because it has not been proven true.
Because evolution has not been proven in its entirety does not make your idea, that we came from clay and mud, valid by any stretch of the imagination. Show the connections of how this is possible, and we might listen, but for now your idea is absurd. Learn to reason, or your response to Naive, in above, is gibberish.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:23 pm:   

How many links do you need between Neanderthal and Modern Homo? Neanderthal was isolated for eons from modern homo. Differences such retromolar space and suprainiac fossa (in the skull of Neanderthal) could have been mutations away from other archaic Homo due to Neanderthal's isolation.

I'm no expert on evolution. I believe God put the science here for us to learn and use. Our understanding is gradual and on going. However, if you're (Mohideen) looking for a better theory of Evolution, you have to look past the ones presented in your (or any other) religious cosmology.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:33 am:   

However, if you're (Mohideen) looking for a better theory of Evolution, you have to look past the ones presented in your (or any other) religious cosmology.
Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:23 pm: Naïve


Yes I do look for a better ‘Theory of Evolution.’ Having identified the possibility of multi-seeded evolution I am looking forward to suggestions from other experts. I believe this forum is open and I hope some expert could answer my query:
When did carbon enter the evolution of life?

Please get away from the idea that I am trying to establish my religious concepts in this thread. I hope a Muslim could be a researcher too!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:11 am:   

I hope so as well. Perhaps we have hope after all.

Now I am curious about this multi-seed idea. Are you advocating two parallel lines of animal evolution leading to differeing lines of homo? And if so (my real question is) how far back in animal evolution are you looking for the divergence?

As to the carbon . . . I am not qualified to answer such a question, but can you explain the relevance of carbon introduction to evolution. I figure most organic compounds contain carbon? Help me out.

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 06:58 pm:   

Are you advocating two parallel lines of animal evolution leading to differeing lines of homo?
Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:11 am: Naive


At this point in time I find evidence for multiple lines of evolution. I have no data to say where the seeds started. The seeds could be single cell creatures or complex creatures produced by an Intelligent Designer. Further research needs to be done to know what were the seeds.

If we agree that aleins have landed on earth and have established their own life forms, then it is easy to accept multiple seeds for evolution. For example, if Mars indeed had life earlier and if all life had become extinct there, given the environmental difference between earth and Mars, there could be more than one seed.

One seed based on the earth's evolution; another seed based on the Mars' evolution. These are speculations at this point in time.

May be when we do land on Mars and find fossil specimens we might be able to connect.

I sought the carbon entry as I believe most life originated in water and I do not expect carbon to be drawn from the early water from which life evolved. I need to look up the literature. God willing I might do so in future.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 12:19 am:   

Mohideen, I really don't know where you're going on about this 'multiple lines of seeds of evolution'. Do you have some sort of reference that describes this better? Is this your own idea? If so, then perhaps you can flesh it out better to explain your thesis with some substance? Or just fishing for an idea yourself?

Anyway, here is something in NewScientist that maybe lends some sort of support to your idea of parallel evolutions from multiple seedings of Earth over eons:

Carbon globules in meteorite may have seeded Earth life
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10699-carbon-globules-in-meteorite-may-h ave-seeded-earth-life.html

So if seeded at different times, did this lead to different evolutionary branches of development? All life forms share the same basic carbon molecular structure, though we may be as different as insect to lichens to whales to asparagus, we are all the same substance. How does your multiple seeds evolutionary idea develop into these various species? Does your idea somehow disavow that all life is related at some elemental level? Was there some pre-Earth origin of life molecules that drifted in from space? As you can see, we do not have much to go on in your idea, so perhaps you can explain it with more detail. A short thesis with an introduction of your ideas, and then sub-sections showing how this idea evolved, followed by a conclusion of what your idea is about, and perhaps we can have some inkling of what you're trying to say. Otherwise, we don't really know what you're trying to say, so help us out here. Take your time, specify if this will be a thesis presented over a number of posts, so they may be numbered as such. Looking forward to seeing your ideas, if they are presented in a reasonable manner.

Thanks. Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 03:58 pm:   

Mohideen,

The earth is billions of years old. Life on earth doesn't date back beyond 1 billion (according to current science). Surely carbon - water (organic compounds) had time to develop between those periods. That space debris may have carried possible organic compounds here is inconsequetial. Life on earth (especially in the animal kingdom) is from one "seed" as you call it. Insect and plant life even have DNA.

Now given the overwhelming evidence to the structural, skeletal, cultural, dental, and thus biological similarities of neanderthals and modern homo, how could you possibly in your wildest meditatings believe two parallel lines of evolution produced similar creatures, at a similar time period, but from entirely different lines of evolution? And why do you think this is a better theory of evolution?

Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 05:51 am:   

Now given the overwhelming evidence to the structural, skeletal, cultural, dental, and thus biological similarities of neanderthals and modern homo ...
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 03:58 pm: Naive


I started research as a student in 1969. If I had accepted the above claim that similarities imply no further study, I couldn't have developed a program to identify data that would lead to an execution-time error at compile-time.

The differences are important. In this thread we have identified some differences.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 07:26 am:   

Carbon globules in meteorite may have seeded Earth life
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 12:19 am: Ivan


Ivan thanks for the link. From the link given by Ivan,
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn10699-carbon-globules-in-meteorite-may-h ave-seeded-earth-life.html
===
The globules are enriched in heavy forms of hydrogen and nitrogen, called deuterium and nitrogen-15, respectively, ruling out their formation on Earth. The relative amounts of these isotopes is characteristic of formation in a very cold environment: between 10 and 20 Kelvin above absolute zero.
This means that the globules may predate our Sun, since temperatures like these would have prevailed in the cold cloud of gas from which our Sun formed and ignited. Alternatively, the globules might have formed after the Sun but while the planets were still developing.
The right temperatures would also have existed in the outer reaches of the developing solar system where the comets are thought to have formed. Intriguingly, comets are known to contain particles of organic material of roughly the same size, although the shape of these particles is not known.
===

The assumption that the carbon structures found in the meteorite seems to arise from the observation that very low temperatures existed just after Big Bang. Very low temperatures exist even now in the inter-galactic space. What stops these carbon structures getting formed recently and reaching earth?

I am looking for the evidence - possibly fossil evidence - showing the first living creature with carbon. I do not know whether such microspic pieces of frozen life forms exist; even if they exist whether we could retrieve them in tact. I hope to look at it later, God willing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, December 07, 2006 - 10:53 am:   

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=59e12b4b-cb64-464c-99a2-cc 8f607fa4d2&k=14960&p=2
===
The whole look of these gullies is very different from landslides, he said. Disturbing the Martian surface usually leaves dark marks. These are white, perhaps from salt or very fine silt left behind by running water. As well, he said the pattern of flowing resembles water going down a hill, not a landslide.

Acids in the water may act like antifreeze and keep the water liquid far below the normal freezing point, he said.

Photos from orbit are not conclusive proof, Edgett said. They can ''just make a case'' that will take more research to check out.
===

We might have to wait until a space probe brings some sub-surface Martian water to check for life there.

However it is interesting that there is a possibility of water now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, December 11, 2006 - 10:12 am:   

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article2064747.ece
===
Using deep-sea submersible robots, the scientists recorded shrimps, mussels and clams living on the wall of the vent's chimney where they had to juggle temperatures ranging from a near-freezing 2C to a near-boiling 80C.

"All somehow tolerate an environment of extreme temperature changes within a few centimetres, and high concentrations of heavy metals from the vent fluids," said Ron O'Dor, a senior scientist on the Census of Marine Life.
===

What aspect of 'survival of the fittest' is demonstrated by the creatures that live on the boundary of the vents?

Or is this one more signal from the 'Intelligent Designer' that He is there?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 01:55 pm:   

DNA is not Destiny - Discover Magazine

http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-06/cover/

It is more than heredetary, but environmental that influences the offsprings, including after the birth of offsprings, through the newly discovered 'epigenetics' and how they affect our DNA and chromosomes.

""People used to think that once your epigenetic code was laid down in early development, that was it for life," says Moshe Szyf, a pharmacologist with a bustling lab at McGill University in Montreal. "But life is changing all the time, and the epigenetic code that controls your DNA is turning out to be the mechanism through which we change along with it. Epigenetics tells us that little things in life can have an effect of great magnitude.""

In the illustration, its caption: "To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations."

There is now evidence that what the parents do to themselves transfers onto the offsprings, including what happens to offsprings after birth, it's all recorded in our DNA. We are also what we eat, do, and think! Imagine generation of generation of people who are prohibitted from thinking, but only obeying, what are their offsprings like? Can they still reason, compared to those generations who encouraged their offsprings to think for themselves, rather than obey? There's a conundrum, one which goes right down to our inhereted- and modified -DNA.

Also see: Rapid changing DNA

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Saturday, January 06, 2007 - 12:47 pm:   

Imagine generation of generation of people who are prohibitted from thinking, but only obeying, what are their offsprings like? Can they still reason, compared to those generations who encouraged their offsprings to think for themselves, rather than obey? There's a conundrum, one which goes right down to our inhereted- and modified -DNA.
Posted on Saturday, December 23, 2006 - 01:55 pm: Ivan

 
Eventually science would understand it is not just the food of the pregnant mother but her thoughts also that influence the baby in her womb.
 
As part of the Mahabharatha folklore there is the story of Abhimanyu who learnt the technique of entering the hostile forces described by Lord Krishna to his mother while he was inside her womb. Lord Krishna did not talk about getting out. In the story Abhimanyu enters the hostile forces but is killed as he did not know how to come out.
 
In Islam, a divorcee or a widow is maintained by the ex-husband or his family until childbirth. She remains in mourning until childbirth. Now science is indicating one reason: the mother by remaining in mourning until delivery ensures that the child does not inherit any character other than that of the mother and the ex-father.
 
The practice of Muslims not to kill women and children but to nurture them as captives also could be because such enemy dependents might change heart during captivity. Let us not forget that every slave desirous of becoming a Muslim is set free through a number of techniques.
 
This epigenetics is possibly the reason for the reversion to Islam of many born and brought up outside the fold of Islam. Let me hasten to add that the same epigenetics is possibly the reason for the apostates leaving Islam.
 
As a side note I was a born Muslim but I seem to love peace. So it is not automatic that children brought up by Muslims would become automatons of obedience.
 
The bright side of epigenetics is that we could transform a war-mongering and war-ravaged population to 'peace-lovers' by our efforts,

Mohideen Ibramsha
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, January 22, 2007 - 10:04 am:   

I do not know whether this page would close soon. If so, I sign-off. Please read
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/168.html?1169477952#POST3082
for my sign-off statement. Thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 09:50 am:   

Was climate change also behind their sudden evolutionary demise?

Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6341987.stm

_42592015_neand_gm_203.jpg


quote:

A sharp freeze could have dealt the killer blow that finished off our evolutionary cousins the Neanderthals, according to a new study.

...Sediment cores drilled from the sea bed near the Balearic Islands show the average sea-surface temperature plunged to 8C (46F). Modern-day sea surface temperatures in the same region vary from 14C (57F) to 20C (68F).



This may be a case of early homo sapiens using knowledge and technology to survive sudden climate change, while our cousins Neanderthals could not adapt and perished. Climate change can also go in reverse, with sudden freezing, and cause drastic demographic change, just like sudden warming.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 11:20 am:   

This may be a case of early homo sapiens using knowledge and technology to survive sudden climate change, while our cousins Neanderthals could not adapt and perished.
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 09:50 am: Ivan


It is also possible that the earth had some warm regions. Being a sphere the whole of it could not be simultaneously away from the sun. It is quite possible that there was no technology to overcome climate change then.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 08:10 pm:   


quote:

It is quite possible that there was no technology to overcome climate change then. --Mohideen



What I had in mind is self preservation 'technology', such as building warmer shelters, sewn warm clothing, better hunting spear throwers, etc., where modern humans were better adapted. We can't change the climate, except to limit green house gases produced by us, but we can use our technological knowledge to survive whatever the climate change throws at us. But if oceans rise, how do we move whole cities above the water line, like we face in New Orleans, for example?

Major challenges face us for the next century, if we cannot reverse the climatic damage done by human use of fossil fuels. In a way, I support Iran's move towards nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, for example, but am weary of their political capability to limit themselves to that alone. I suspect they may be more self destructive than we understand, if they go for the bomb. God help them, and us, for the world will face a brutal reality check if they do. False beliefs cannot stand the test of reality, so science and religion must not be mixed. To do so can bring about a bitter end, for reality is not to be cheated of the truth. The Neanderthals learned this lesson the very hard way, they are now extinct.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Tuesday, March 06, 2007 - 08:35 pm:   

Major challenges face us for the next century, if we cannot reverse the climatic damage done by human use of fossil fuels.
Posted on Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 08:10 pm: Ivan


Fossil fuels are just one aspect of the warming. What is the amount of heat generated in weilding a sword or throwing a spear? Compare that with the heat that gets generated by 500 ton bombs. The population does not get to add the heat produced by the weapons. I hope some one does and factors that in. War has to go if we have to survive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:42 pm:   

Film rage on the "300", is it a new form of 'censorship'?

In the news, from BBC, "Iranian anger at Hollywood 'assault'" seems to be opening up a can of worms: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6455969.stm

How valid is criticism of a work of fiction, scripted by Frank Miller, on the Spartan king's army of only 300 men against hundred thousands of the Persian army, in the film epic "300", something that took place some 2500 years ago? Criticism of any kind is usually valid, especially if it offends some quarters of the population as insensitive to their sentiments, but to criticize a fictional account, very loosely based on historical facts, to cause controversy in the entertainment industry may be taking this too far, almost on the edge of censorship of story telling. The modern Persian population may be proud of its ancient heritage, but to identify with events that took place thousands of years ago, when the world was a more barbaric place, is to dredge up the past into the present, which is silly. Are today's Iranians really identifying with their distant ancestors in modern times? To protest the film version of some ancient battle, where the Spartans were greatly outnumbered, in their valiant fight of hand to hand combat, is akin to today's Mexicans protesting the films of "Alamo", where a handful of Americans stood up to thousands of Santana's soldiers in a valiant fight to the death. Or is this more like those protests against the film "Alexander" because Darius was defeated? Is there valid protest to admitting defeat historically? Should fiction simply never talk about it? Are today's Iranians so incensed by "300" because it casts their ancient ancestors in a non too glamorous light? Are they the same as their ancestors, as depicted, in effect? If they persist in calls to censor films, then perhaps they are not too far removed from the barbaric sentiments of ancient history, so their protest is understandable. But should it matter in today's world, where writing and filming fiction is open ended, to say freely pretty much what is on the writer's mind? None can blame Hollywood, nor Frank Miller, for attacking today's modern Iranian nation, unlike some very unflattering movies coming out of the Middle East showing America in a very bad light. I have not yet seen the film, screening here as of this weekend, but this is ancient history, so what's the big deal? How about Iranians addressing in mass demonstrations some of their present problems and concerns, like their lack of freedoms, or their mullahs' ambitions for the bomb?

Grow up, and get over it. Censorship has no place in today's modern world, it is immature. Hasn't civilization evolved beyond such petty concerns regarding films and story telling of some ancient times, when people fought with swords and spears?


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

anony
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 09:03 am:   

Is slavery on the rise again?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6468097.stm
Probe of Darfur 'slavery' starts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6451267.stm
Haiti's hidden 'child slaves'

Did evolution start to reverse?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:10 am:   

Censorship has no place in today's modern world, it is immature.
Posted on Saturday, March 17, 2007 - 12:42 pm: Ivan


True. If a society desires to spend its wealth on fantasies we should let them. However if any movie encourages the American population to permit bombing of Iran that is a serious matter.

How far are we from arousing public sentiments using fiction? Please remember that the average movie goer might not recognize a fiction as fiction but mistake it as factual, that too when it is supposed to be based on an ancient event.

We know inciting hatred is wrong. We also value free speech. The question is: Is it free speech to incite hatred?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 11:32 am:   

Did evolution start to reverse?
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 09:03 am: anony


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6451267.stm
===
Jeanette was born in the countryside outside the small town of Hinche in the north of the country. Her parents are among the poorest of the poor in this country where more than half the population of 9m lives on less than 50 US cents (£0.25) a day.

... "We need to show the poorest families that they have a duty to look after their children - and we need to build schools in the countryside, so that they have something to stay for."
===

An empty stomach does not allow education to be absorbed. Before talking of educating the abject poor let us try and help them earn their food.

Though not the best, I would like to suggest the noon day meal scheme run by the government of Tamilnadu, India as a model. Build schools but do offer food along with education.

What should a parent who cannot feed the child do? Watch the child die of hunger? Or let the child do labor but at least get food and shelter and survive?

Given a school that gives the child a breakfast, lunch and a snack to eat before leaving school, most parents would send the child to school rather than send them to child labor.

Isn't evolution 'survival of the fittest?' If for the abject poor the survival is in child labor, to me it is evolution at work!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 06:18 pm:   


quote:

However if any movie encourages the American population to permit bombing of Iran that is a serious matter. - Mohideen


Of course, but how can a movie set in ancient history 2 1/2 millennia ago make anybody bomb anybody else? Is this ot a real stretch?

Here is a more immediate reason for why bombs may fly, in accordance with 'evolution as failed reason' per Iran's Ayatollah: Iran threatens 'illegal' nuke work, http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/03/21/iran.nuclear.ap/index.html
"But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so." -per Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Considering that Iran's power people had consistently ignored UN warnings, or calls for coming clean on nuke inspections, it is not a stretch to imagine that they will find themselves inside their threat, to act illegally. Unevolved reason is their failure, if their nuke sites get bombed. Of course, they will predictably do their song and dance, as they primitively have done before: "Death to America, death to Israel!"

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Thursday, March 22, 2007 - 09:20 am:   

Of course, but how can a movie set in ancient history 2 1/2 millennia ago make anybody bomb anybody else? Is this ot a real stretch?
Posted on Wednesday, March 21, 2007 - 06:18 pm: Ivan


Please see
http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/88/194.html?1174569461#POST3486
for my response. I hope all agree to have the discussion regarding Iran in that thread.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:51 am:   

The Great Pyramids, an example of 'unfailed' reason. They still stand today!

How were they built? One possible explanation, sounds plausible:

"Were the pyramids built INSIDE OUT? Engineer claims ancient Egyptians built burial chamber first and then worked outwards" - Daily Mail

20070330192309990001.gif

quote:

For centuries it's been thought that the ancient Egyptians built their huge pyramids by hauling heavy granite blocks up specially crafted ramps.
Yet Newport engineer Peter James has branded this ‘impossible’, claiming the ramps would need to have been a quarter of a mile long or else they would have been too steep to carry the large blocks up.
He believes, instead, that the Egyptians built an inner core of zigzagging ramps, using smaller, lighter blocks while the larger outer casing stones were placed on the outside using scaffolding.



I like it, not too far removed from one of my ideas presented in Aegyptus, the novel.

Ivan

See also:
Ruins of bustling port unearthed at Egypt's Giza pyramids - the Nile came up to the building site for transporting stones?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Sunday, April 01, 2007 - 09:10 pm:   

The Great Pyramids, an example of 'unfailed' reason.
Posted on Saturday, March 31, 2007 - 11:51 am: Ivan


http://www.hillmanwonders.com/z_seven_wonders/pyramid%20of%20khufu.htm
===
The rugged exterior we see today on Pharaoh Khufu's tomb was originally covered by a beautiful smooth limestone surfacing. That valuable material was subsequently filched by later rulers for use on their own buildings. This lowered the height of the pyramid by about 5% to its current height of 138 meters (456 feet). It also shortened its base width.
===

The height has decreased from 145.26 meters to 138 meters, a decrease of 7.26 meters. Quoting again, we have:
===
Jean-Pierre Houdin said advanced 3D technology had shown the main ramp which was used to haul the massive stones to the apex was contained 10-15 meters beneath the outer skin, tracing a pyramid within a pyramid.
===

Quoting for the third time:
===
He found that a frontal, mile-long ramp would have used up as much stone as the pyramid, while being too steep near the top. He believes an external ramp was used only to supply the base.
===

Let us accept that all the stones used to build the pyramid except the base were hauled up by an internal ramp. The length of the ramp equals the sum of the four sides of the internal pyramid. Since we do not know the size of the internal pyramid let us use the size of the built pyramid itself to calculate the slope of the ramp.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pyramid_of_Giza
===
Papyrus documents[citation needed] and existing cubit measuring rods give us the units of measure used to specify the plan of the pyramid and so it is thought that, at construction, the Great Pyramid was 280 Egyptian royal cubits tall (146.6 meters or 480.9 feet), but with erosion and the theft of its topmost stone (the pyramidion) its current height is 455.2 feet approximately 138.8 m. Each base side was 440 royal cubits, with each royal cubit measuring 0.523/4m (20.63 inches).[9] Thus, the base was originally almost 231 m on a side and covered approximately 53,000 square metres with a slope angle of 51.50.40 degrees (seked = 5½).
===

In the subsequent discussion we use the units of royal cubits for simplicity. The base is 440 units wide and the height is 280 units tall. To avoid the problem of the slope of the ramp getting steeper as we move inside the pyramid, we use building blocks of reducing heights. As the levels increase the length of the ramp decreases. We need the ramp to be just as wide as the building blocks.

Let the building block be w-units wide and h-units tall. The length of the block is adjusted to match the capacity of the labor. For simplicity of calculations we assume the length to be equal to width.

The width of the pyramid at base is b-units. The length of the longest ramp is 4b units. The next inner ramp would have a length of (4b – 8w) units, the second inner ramp would be (4b – 2 * 8w) units and so on. The length at the nth level is zero when 4b equals 8nw. Thus, n = (b/2w). The total length of all ramps is 2b(n+1) units. The length of the ith ramp is (4b – 8iw) units. Let the height of the building block at the ith level h(i) be c(4b – 8iw) and H be the height of the pyramid. Then the following could be derived:
H = 4bc(n+1) – 4cwn(n+1).

Substituting 280 for H, and 440 for b, we get 280 = 4*440*c(n+1) – 4*c*w*n(n+1). Substituting the value of n = 440/(2w) and simplifying we get c= (280 * w) / {880*(220+w)}.

Let us take w to be 2 units giving us n = 110 and c = 0.0028665 or 0.28665% which is a very small slope. The tallest building block has height h(0) of 0.0028665 * 4 * 440 = 5.04504 units and the shortest building block h(109) has a height of just 0.045864 units. Please notice that as the height of placement of a building block increases it becomes lighter.

Do we really need to work with interior ramps? Not necessary!

We can have the ramp grow as the pyramid grows on the outside as explained below.

The number of blocks at the lowest level with height h(0) = (440/2) squared giving 48,400 blocks. We place these 48,400 blocks with h(0) height on level ground. We build a ramp around these for a height of h(0). Using this ramp, we place 44,944 blocks of height h(1). We continue the ramp above the exposed h(0) blocks to raise the level by another h(1) units. We continue building the pyramid and the ramp likewise until we place all the blocks.

Now we plaster the ramp starting from the top to get the smooth surface. We have built the pyramid in situ without the complications of having interior ramps.

We would not have thought of this technique but for the intuition of architect Jean-Pierre Houdin who thought of building the pyramid recursively.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 02, 2007 - 05:46 am:   

May one breakthrough lead to another.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-sci-blood2apr02,1,3346147.s tory?coll=la-news-a_section
===
In the 1980s, researchers isolated an enzyme from coffee beans that could convert type B to type O. Clinical trials of the enzyme-produced blood showed it behaved no differently from normal blood in hospitalized patients.

... If the trials are successful, ZymeQuest will manufacture a system that can be used by blood banks and hospitals to convert donor blood into type O as necessary
===

There is just one more problem to solve: getting an artificial plasma so that the converted type O blood red cells are mixed with artificial plasma eliminating the possibility of the blood receipient suffering any infection through blood transfusion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 07960&dopt=Abstract
===
An 'artificial' plasma for one-stage factor-VIII assays is made by incubating human plasma with EDTA, to destroy factor VIII, and afterwards removing the anticoagulant by dialysis.

... The artificial plasma yielded assay results closely comparable to haemophilic plasma in samples with factor-VIII activities in the range 0.01--20.0 iu/ml; the mean results in the artificial system were estimated to be 0.997 x those in haemophilic plasma, with a 95% confidence interval of 0.901--1.103.
===

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3 733904&dopt=Abstract
===
Two plasmas were studied: One (AP1) contained electrolytes, amino acids, and albumin; the other (AP2) was similar to CSF and contained a mixture of 37 organic nutrients plus electrolytes and albumin.

... Thus, there appears to be an eventual disruption of normal oxidative metabolism resulting in energy failure, possibly caused by the absence of an essential nutrient from the artificial plasma.
===

http://www.hospira.com/Products/Hextend.aspx
===
Balanced electrolyte solution that resembles the composition of the principal ionic constituents of normal plasma
===

We hope research to identify the missing essential nutrient of the 1986 study - if required - would be started and succeed. Then we would have ensured virtually unlimited supply of 'infection-free' O type blood to be used in surgeries.

Is this the next stage in evolution - going from individual survival to species survival?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 11:23 am:   

BORDT - multi-cultural humor?

250px-Borat_in_Cologne.jpg

Why is it some cultures can laugh at themselves, while others cannot? Is it an evolutionary artifact of cultural group intelligence? Take BORAT's satire, for example. His raunchy brand of cynical silliness and bad sex permeates critique of his own culture, Judaism, while at the same time showing the idiocyncracies of other cultures, like born-agains or regressive central Asian tyrannical states. You really have to watch the whole of BORAT to get it, but it is uproariously funny, slapping your sides type funny that sometimes really offend, with a clever hint of Jewish humor. Sacha Cohen is brilliant in his playing character, an award winning comedian, though odious too! Compare that to some other cultures who cannot laugh at themselves, and even forbid it under penalty of, where even laughter is frowned upon, and one begins to wonder where did these diversities of culture originate in their respective evolutions. Where did one succeed with humor, endemic to most western civilizations from England and Ireland to Ukraine and Poland, while this humor failed to materialize in any meaningful sense in nations of the eastern world, from Lybia to Afghanistan? Why such evolutionary different paths of culture? I especially liked the sex wrestling scenes in the nude modestly covered with big blackout dongs in your face. :-) Who could not laugh at themselves in such a naked situation at a candlelight dinner?

Indeed, not all multicultures are created equal! Some evolved into humor, to not take themselves too seriously, and laugh! :-) :-) :-) :lol:

Btw, Wiki's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borat write up shows how Cohen flipped off a lot of people in his comedies, though those who feel pissed off missed the point. "Hi five!" :-)

Ubah
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 12:29 pm:   

Well this is an interesting topic.

Sometimes it is the history of a culture that causes those in it to either guard against perceived insult, or just say oh well and laugh at their own idiosyncrasies. I think it is a protection mechanism. For example it is O.K. when those within the culture poke fun at themselves, but sometimes not allowed when it comes from an outsider. I suppose there is a fine line between humor and insult. If, however, many members of a group get offended, then they must have perceived insult and attack (not humor).

Take Imus' comments on Rutgers Womens Basketball. He obviously thought his comments were funny, light hearted, allowable, and he believed his audience would perceive those comments the same way. Now within the African-American community, those comments made from one person to another could have been seen as humor (depending on the circumstances and familiarity of those in the conversation). But coming from someone outside of the culture . . . sheer taboo!

Now as far as why a culture might have taboo against intra-cultural humor . . .

I don't know that we can speak upon the dynamics that happen within other cultures, because like Imus, we are outsiders to those cultures. Imus only understood the connotation of his comments on a surface level. He knew they were insulting words, but he operated from the point of view that people in his group might see it as humor. No doubt those other cultures you mentioned have ways of laughing at themselves . . . they just may not want to expose them to perceived outsiders.


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Naive
Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2007 - 12:41 pm:   

P.S.

Perhaps they feel that laughing at their own cultural idiosyncrasies will open the door for others to feel it is O.K. to do the same; a circumstance they may not want.

Only an in depth study of that culture's history and current social values would reveal an answer to your question of, "Why such evolutionary different paths . . . ?".


Naive
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:36 am:   


quote:

Sometimes it is the history of a culture that causes those in it to either guard against perceived insult, or just say oh well and laugh at their own idiosyncrasies. I think it is a protection mechanism. For example it is O.K. when those within the culture poke fun at themselves, but sometimes not allowed when it comes from an outsider. I suppose there is a fine line between humor and insult. If, however, many members of a group get offended, then they must have perceived insult and attack (not humor). --Naive


OK to poke fun at yourselves, your own culture, with the hope that others can do the same at themselves? This does not always work, of course, and some cultures will instead think the other's self criticism and satire as merely a sign of their weakened decadence. However, to level the playing field, it is okay to laugh at any culture, provided it is not done in an intentionally hurtful way, since that is a preservation of one of our most important freedoms, the freedom of speech. Of course, if done in bad taste, then like leaving a loved one crying over a cruel joke, it is not beneficial to anyone. Freedom is to be handled with responsibility, not mockery of itself. But if handled correctly, then indeed laughter of another can help them also laugh at themselves, not take themselves too seriously in some egotistical sense, and lighten up. It's also called 'detachment', something not at all easy to do, even when one tries to not project, and detach. Tough one. :-)

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mohideen Ibramsha
Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 10:55 pm:   

Freedom is to be handled with responsibility, not mockery of itself.
Posted on Monday, April 23, 2007 - 12:36 am: Ivan


I agree. What does one do when some use the 'freedom of speech' to wantonly hurt others? Would 'gun control' be a good analogy?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan
Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 09:56 am:   

We all have the power of free speech to protect ourselves, as a given. Words may injure us if we allow them, but if we do not, they have no power over us. Guns, on the other hand, do have power over us, in that they can cause bodily harm or death. Not a good analogy. The Second Amednment of the US Constitution gives the citizenry the right to protect itself from violence, which means they may bear arms. Free speech is separate matter, not only protected legally, but it is an inalienable right. So their relationship is of unequal value, in that if the world was totally safe from tyranny and violence, guns would not be needed, but free speech would remain a right no matter what because it is one of our inalienable rights of freedom.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Le Chef
Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2007 - 01:29 am:   

Meat the next generation - Makeover!

nz399.jpg
-interactive- to NZero

Some of my best friends are Makeovers. :-)

Le Chef
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/science scams
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 12:44 pm:   

How to scam the public with 'free energy' machines: Watch your wallet.

http://www.phact.org/e/con_man.htm

180px-WaterScrewPerpetualMotion.png (interactive)
The "water screw" perpetual motion machine from a 1660 woodcut.


Hang onto your wallet, but here are some salient points:

quote:

Claim you are not in it for the money, just to save humanity. Say you have already been offered huge sums, but want to sell it to the little guy (i.e. the gullible guy). Try to market it to older mid-western Christian farmers - they've always bought in in the past. Build excitement for something wonderful.
Focus investors attention away from evaluating claims on technical grounds. The following distractions are recommended:
1 get them involved in political issues. Convince them you have some large secretive benefactor.
2 focus their attention on an elaborate multi-generational international conspiracy which has kept everyone pitching free energy to fail. Make your audience outraged against the conspiracy, yet empowered that they can finally overcome it by giving you money.
3 talk about your valiant battles with the patent office or some government bureaucracy (that always warms people up)
4 get into religion quick (religious people are already taught to have faith) -appear to have God on your side
5 get people to focus on your theory rather than measurable evidence.
6 claim it already has been proven so you need not offer any proof   Tell them you are done proving it and need big money to start mass production.
7 Write an autobiography (self-published, of course) where you can "control" the facts. When someone questions your shady past simply say, "Buy my book and learn the truth about what REALLY happened." Naive people won't question the "facts" because, after all, it's in a book.  If your book is long enough, you may mesmerize them.
  You must focus on the big conspiracy. It's very important to make people believe in the big conspiracy - because that's your excuse for past failures, present lack of evidence, the critics, and future delays. Locking horns with bureaucrats or the scientific community can distract from your lack of evidence and get you great free press. Make people believe exciting claims of bad guys wanting to steal or bury your ideas. - then claim you will destroy your prototypes and records rather than let them fall into the hands of the bad guys.



This is not good science, and mostly a scam to raise money, and to self promote oneself with a 'Messiah' complex. These people are frauds, not scientifically truthful, and mostly employ some trick to make their inventions work, if they work at all. Usually there is some chemical reaction hidden in the process, or temporary and unsustainable power surge, which gives appearance of positive results. However, in the end since such processes are never self sustainable beyond the fuel or energy added, there can never be a complete continuous loop created, whereby the process would continue indefinitely. This would be the natural result if they really did have a 'plus one' energy device, but it never works, and at this state of knowledge, it cannot work. We still do not know how to squeeze energy out of the space vacuum, or by any other means to break the Second law of thermodynamics. Remember, Caveat Emptor. The same goes for fantastic medical claims. Beware.

120px-Perpetuum1.png73px-Perpetuum2.png120px-Boyle'sSelfFlowingFlask.png

In perpetuum, ad infinitum, redux ad absurdum. :-)


Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/madrassas
Posted on Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 12:20 pm:   

What goes on in 'schools' called "madrassas"?

250px-Madrasah1.jpg_40047338_madrassa203ap.jpg


Here's an inside view: The madrassa & me

quote:

The Mosque: Two stories tall. Pretty normal. Doesn't look new or old.

The teachers: Two dudes, one 35, another 30. Seem nice and pleasant. They agree to teach my brother & me how to read Arabic. We are going to be students for a few weeks. Proviso: we are not to be beaten and receive explicit special treatment.

The schedule:
4:30 AM wake up, "read" Koran.
5:30 AM perform dawn prayer.
5:45 AM keep reading.
6:00 AM eat breakfast.
6:30 AM keep reading.
11:00 AM lunch.
11:30 AM sleep for siesta.
2:00 PM keep reading.
7:00 PM dinner.
7:30 PM sunset prayer.
8:00 PM keep reading.
10:30 PM last prayer.
11:00 PM sleep.

...and repeat.

A few points. I left out two day prayers. They would puncuate the reading, though I forget the times we performed them. The food was OK if plain. I could never sleep during the siesta. It seemed kind of weird to me. I put "read" in quotes initially because I didn't understand Arabic, and we were basically just learning the alphabet so we could recite the Koran.



This was not a Salafi school, but in Bangladesh, so more Southeast Asian. Still, the routine was to read Arabic text, even without understanding it, but to commit it to memory.

quote:

They had one 15 minute break once a week. They always looked forward to it. The madrassa was in a big hall on the second floor of the mosque, and during this break, they could go out on the terrace and look at people. To my knowledge the kids never really left the grounds of the mosque, though one or two might work as errand boys. This 15 minute period was their time of freedom, and they would stare at women walking by. No woman would come into the hall without covering herself up (usually sisters or mothers of students), but they still stared at them too-like hungry dogs. Sometimes uncovered women would stand outside, and kids would try and catch a glimpse. They seemed awfully horny, though they weren't particular articulate in their ribald conversation since they had so little experience and information to create fantastic scenarios around.



In effect, this is 'cruel and unusual' form of punishing 'education' to twist young minds into ignorance. It should be outlawed in the West. This is NOT an education, but a waste of young minds, twisted into mindless slavery. What future will these madrassa 'educated' kids have?

When I was a child in shcool, I was taught to reason. What are these children being taught?

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/mad Sudan
Posted on Saturday, December 01, 2007 - 12:03 am:   

Religious madness gone mad - with knives and fire, and Teddy bears.

First it was 200 hundred lashes for a girl gang raped in Saudi Kingdom, now 'death' threats and lashing for an English school teacher in Sudan who asked her 7 year olds what they wanted to name their Teddy bear, and they said "Mohammed", a common enough name in Islam, but for this she was arrested and jailed. Can it get any crazier? This is happening on a daily basis now, a religion gone insane. Here are some pictures:

sudanprotesters1G_468x315.jpg
gibbonsburnR_468x319.jpg
SudaneseG_468x316.jpg

The pictures speak for themselves. That poor woman in a world of religious insanity. I had traveled Sudan 20 years ago, it was no where near this insane then, though poor and primitive. God help them all.

Ivan
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ivan/Teddy sacrifice
Posted on Monday, December 03, 2007 - 10:29 am:   

So ends the bitter row over Teddy (Mohammed) Sudan.

stantis.jpg
(interactive) a clash of 'cultures'


The teacher apologized and is on her way home back to civilization and culture: Teddy row teacher freed

... "and don't do that again or it will be a whipping for you!"

End of story... until next time.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

free at last
Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2008 - 09:51 pm:   

Freedom is so new. Humanity had been living in prison all through history. Religious restriction, societal restrictions, obedience to the master restrictions, obedience to the lord, the king, the caliph, the priest, forever. Freedom is still so new we wander about outside the gates like newly released prison camp inmates, uncertain of what to do or where to go. In time we will settle down and enjoy our new won freedoms. Free at last!

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration