Re: Intelligent Design
Back in the days of the CompuServe forums, where some of us met, this evolution versus creationism argument came up. Whilst I think microevolution is obvious (legs getting longer, camouflage getting more effective etc) I am not so sure about the giant leaps. Back then the eye was brought up as an example of a complex structure and people purported to show how it could have evolved in mini steps. I believed them! However, I posted one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. The only response I got was hand waving from some boy wonder science geek who said that evolution has been proved as a theory therefore metamorphosis must have evolved (without actually suggesting how)!
Re: Salty water from Mars?
Greetings revtec wrote: Regarding the fate of Mars' water,. There remain somedifficult problems in orbital mechanics. Cosmic Chemistry :The origin of the earth's oceans. http://www.johnkharms.com/cosmic.htm With regards Lew - Original Message - From: revtec To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 10:30 PM Subject: Re: Salty water from Mars? The oceans are obviously getting saltier each year as additiona minerals are disolved by rain water and washed to the sea. It has been calculated through measurements of river flow rates world wide with their associated salt contenthow muchthis is. This rate is such that the oceans of 50 million years ago would have been fresh water. As I recall, this argument was used to debunk 6,000 yr. biblical creation, but now it has become a serious limitation tothe 10's or 100's of additional millionsof years needed by evolution theory. That 50 million is a maximum number since leaching rates drop over time as the mineral deposits become depleted. Also the structure of many of the worlds river valleys show evidence of much higher rates of water flow than we presently see. Check "The Genesis Flood" by Whitcomb and Morris for more details. Regarding the fate of Mars' water, are we approaching some vindication of Velikovski? There remain somedifficult problems in orbital mechanics. Jeff - Original Message - From: RC Macaulay To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 9:12 PM Subject: Salty water from Mars? In Bob Parks newsletter " whats new" ,he reported the Mars explorers encountered dry ocean beds that once contained " salt water". Perhaps that can explain my long sought answer to " why" earth's oceans are so salty. There is not enough salt on earth to cause the level of salt content that exists in the earth' oceans. Hmm.. again.. did earth close encounter with Mars in the distant past " strip " off water causing what the ancient's dsecribed as the " great flood" ? Richard attachment: Blank Bkgrd.gif
RE: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
John Steck wrote: I do not think that conclusion precludes fatalism however. Our future is not written in stone somewhere. We exercise free will, but it would be naive to think we are not largely predictable because of severe influences past and present. This strikes me as a false dichotomy. We can be completely bounded by influences and yet also have free will. While I hesitate to compare people to computers, an analogy does come to mind. Computers are 100% predictable, and of course they are completely bounded by a small set of rules, but that does not limit the number and variety of programs a computer can run. The set of programs is infinitely large, and as varied as the programmer's imagination. Programs are already the most complex structures ever devised by people, and there is no reason to think they could not be made far more complex, rivaling DNA and cells in complexity and the number of instructions. (I am not suggesting that people are 100% predictable or bounded by a small set of rules.) People are domesticated primates -- like pet capuchin monkeys. They are as bound and limited by biology and primate psychology as chimpanzees or any other primates. People will never escape, outgrow or transcend these limitations for even one second, any more than a bat can voluntarily stop echolocation, or a plant can stop photosynthesis. Edwin Wilson, with whom I seldom disagree, once described human biophilia for certain landscapes: . . . people want to be on the height looking down; they prefer open, savanna like terrain with scattered trees and copses; they want to be near a body of water, such as a river or lake, or oceanfront. . . . People want to be in the environments in which our species evolved over millions of years. That is, hidden in a copse or rock wall, looking out over savanna and transitional woodland at acacia and similar dominant trees of the African environment. And, why not? Is that such a strange idea? Let me tell you that all mobile animals, down to the very simplest, with tiny brains, have what we call habitat selection, innate habitat selection. They have elaborate algorithms, searching for the right microenvironment -- the right spot to settle -- and hunt, or live and nest. This is a universal trait. Why then, would it be such a strange thing to find at least a residue of humanity's long, long evolutionary history. . . - The Coming Synergism between Science and the Humanities, lecture given at the University of California, San Diego, broadcast on UCTV I agree with everything up to the last sentence. What we see is not a residue but the living, continuing, embodiment of these traits and this evolutionary history. It is as much a part of our present makeup as our metabolism -- and just as vital to us. These traits have as much power over us today as they did millions of years ago. They will *always* have this power. But here is the point -- or the escape clause, if you will: among those traits are free will and creative thinking. We have free will. So do chimpanzees. I think all mammals do. We also have hands, and tools, and these give us an outlet for creative thinking and action. It opens up an infinite variety of possibilities, both good and evil. A computer is a general purpose logic machine -- it is a universal Turing machine that can, in principle, perform any operation that any other Turing machine can do. Free will, imagination plus hands (or feet, actually -- our most unique appendages) make us general-purpose creativity machines. I suspect we are capable of achieving anything that any carbon based life form on any planet can achieve. As I said in the book: Ever since we invented tools and began to shape our own environment, we have shaped our own destiny. I was thinking of the opening scenes in the movie 2001 although I do not believe we were tutored by another species. Children recapitulate our tool-making accomplishments so readily I am sure the skill is inborn and instinctual, like the beaver's ability to make a dam. - Jed
RE: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Let me give one more example of what I had in mind. John Steck wrote: If you become a student of human psychology you discover our sub-conscious decision making ability is severely flawed by life long conditioning, education, and natural selection responses. It is the cornerstone of marketing and advertising. Yes, it is, but I would not call this a flaw. It is a specification, and it does not actually limit our actions or control our behavior. Returning to the (inadequate!) analogy to computers, these things are the microcode controlling the central processor. The human-mind-as-computer can still run any program you like, and it can still emulate any other mind, but because of the way it evolved and because of the constraints placed upon it by culture, education and so on, it runs some programs awkwardly and slowly. People can add up a column of numbers, and they can fly a airplane, but we are not evolved to do these tasks, so they take a great deal of extra mental effort. We have to bend the mind to do things it was not evolved to do. You can be sure that birds fly using far fewer brain cells and we do, and of course they are much better at it. As for adding numbers, we can devise living computers made from a small network of neurons that can add far more reliably and faster than most people do, and there have been a few people born with an astounding ability to do mathematical computation, the so-called human adding machines. No doubt they have brains that can be wired directly to perform mathematical computation, whereas the rest of us must do it symbolically, using higher logic many layers above the primitive arithmetic operations. In other words, no matter how limited our minds may be because of education, culture, or inborn biology, we can always transcend the present-day _expression_ of these limitations. Millions of people throughout history have done this. That is the source of all progress, and all cultural change. The key word is transcend -- which does not mean escape or sublimate. Social evils such as war, rape, murder and McDonald's advertisements will always fascinate, attract and secretly thrill people. But that does not mean people will always indulge themselves in war or McDonald's food. It means that Hamlet will be a perennial bestseller for the rest of history. - Jed
RE: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Flawed in that we truly believe we are freely making unbiased choices and havelordship over the influences around us. That believe exists only throughthe bliss of ignorance. Consciously we do sometimes exercise broad judgment over our impulses, unconsciously we are quite pre-disposed to pattern behaviorsandvulnerable to perception manipulation (hypnosis, illusions, tongue twisters, porn, smoking, White House briefings (ha ha), etc.). Sorry if I've upsetyour apple cart... we all would like to believe we can somehow transcend our own personal idiosyncrasies, but even the will to continuously try and do that is part of our learned response conditioning. 8^) -Steck -Original Message-From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 11:27 AMTo: vortex-L@eskimo.comSubject: RE: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05Let me give one more example of what I had in mind. John Steck wrote: If you become a student of human psychology you discover oursub-conscious decision making ability is severely flawed by life longconditioning, education, and natural selection responses. It is thecornerstone of marketing and advertising.Yes, it is, but I would not call this a flaw. It is a specification, and it does not actually limit our actions or control our behavior. Returning to the (inadequate!) analogy to computers, these things are the microcode controlling the central processor. The human-mind-as-computer can still run any program you like, and it can still emulate any other mind, but because of the way it evolved and because of the constraints placed upon it by culture, education and so on, it runs some programs awkwardly and slowly. People can add up a column of numbers, and they can fly a airplane, but we are not evolved to do these tasks, so they take a great deal of extra mental effort. We have to bend the mind to do things it was not evolved to do. You can be sure that birds fly using far fewer brain cells and we do, and of course they are much better at it. As for adding numbers, we can devise living computers made from a small network of neurons that can add far more reliably and faster than most people do, and there have been a few people born with an astounding ability to do mathematical computation, the so-called "human adding machines." No doubt they have brains that can be wired directly to perform mathematical computation, whereas the rest of us must do it symbolically, using higher logic many layers above the primitive arithmetic operations.In other words, no matter how limited our minds may be because of education, culture, or inborn biology, we can always transcend the present-day _expression_ of these limitations. Millions of people throughout history have done this. That is the source of all progress, and all cultural change.The key word is "transcend" -- which does not mean "escape" or "sublimate." Social evils such as war, rape, murder and McDonald's advertisements will always fascinate, attract and secretly thrill people. But that does not mean people will always indulge themselves in war or McDonald's food. It means that "Hamlet" will be a perennial bestseller for the rest of history.- Jed
Re: Intelligent Design
Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nick Palmer one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. I hope that someone will provide a good answer for that one... I certainly don't have it now, but will check my collection of Richard Dawkins material later-on in the mean time, it does bring to mind one very fascinating possibility Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
John Steck wrote: Flawed in that we truly believe we are freely making unbiased choices and havelordship over the influences around us. That believe exists only throughthe bliss of ignorance. Consciously we do sometimes exercise broad judgment over our impulses, unconsciously we are quite pre-disposed to pattern behaviorsandvulnerable to perception manipulation The gigantic Asian seaquake on 26, December, 2004, deep in the Pacific Ocean lasted a colossal 200 seconds, had an epicentre magnitude of 9.0, struck 250 km south-east of Sumatra, causing the Earth to wobble on its axis . This earthquake has changed the World's Map, on Gaia's mantle and Biorhythmicity - The Biological Clock. From the archive, I dug up an old 2001 posting on " The Octave Shift " From: Maria Luisa Mazzolenis To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:17 AM Subject: [BIOSONICsystem] more on octave shift " ..but I have to ask you again about the octave shift because I did not understand properly. .." The Planetary influence of Pluto from 8th-23rd August 2001 had given many of us a trying time. Those who emerged from Pluto's ordeal will probably be vibrating to a newer octave. His or her Octave Shift is accompanied by vast transforming changes expressed Astrologically, Psychically and Physically. In medical parlance, 1 octave shift signifies in Cochlear noise damage, for small to moderate losses, the greatest morphological damage. This is used in the analysis of the hearing organ. The phenomenon of " half-octave shift " is measured between the frequency of the damaging sound and the frequency of the greatest sensitivity loss. In Holistic Medicine, the Octave Shift signifies the activation of a newly formed frequency octave. This frequency shift is a transformation on many levels: 1. Cosmic 2.Planetary 3.Personal 4.Organic 5.Inorganic 6. Metallic 7.Mineral 8.Molecular 9. Atomic 10. Ionic 11. Subatomic The former life-octave is replaced by the new resonance. It does not occur at a specific time. It is just realised. At the moment of the shift, you see sounds, hear and feel colours and the overtones of the higher and lower octaves of awareness. This occurs with the balancing of the Meridial, the Chakra system and The Planetary Alignment.The familiar yet outdated masks are releasedand recede into the background of consciousness.Time stands still and space is non-local- we are existing everywhere at once, in a Dimensional Shift All electromagnetic frequencies of biological processes are bio-rhythmic. These are designated as: 1. Infracidian [ less than a day ] 2. Circadian [ about 24 Hours ] 3. Ultracidian [ more than 1 day ] More than a hundred Biological Clocks have been identified and have been discovered to have weekly, Lunar , Monthly and Yearly Cycles. World wide studies of Biorhythmicity have demonstrated the pervasive influence of Infracidian cycles on our physical and Mental Health and may range from 1 day to many years. In Traditional Chinese Medicine [ TCM ], the 24 hour cycle with reference to the 2 hourly interval between 2 meridial channels of the 12 meridial system in Acupuncture, is called the Horary Cycle. The Western equivalent is the Circadian Rhythm or the Biological Clock. Central and peripheral oscillators in different body tissues [ protein molecules ] are found to have fascinating timing mechanisms at the cellular and molecular levels.These molecular biological clocks are accessory chronological keepers with rhythmicities different from the Master Biological Clock in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus [ SCN ] of the brain. Scientists monitor a calcium indicating photoprotein , in transgenic plants, to determine the daily oscillations of free Calcium levels in higher plants. These Calcium oscillations may possibly control the temporal regulation of cellular division,metabolism,gene _expression_ including mental health,cancer and even Jet- Lag and are involved in the transduction pathway in the synchronization of Light to enviromental Day/Night or Yin/Yang Cycle. - Lew With regards Lew - Original Message - From: John Steck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 2:20 AM Subject: RE: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05 Flawed in that we truly believe we are freely making unbiased choices and havelordship over the influences around us. That believe exists only throughthe bliss of ignorance. Consciously we do sometimes exercise broad judgment over our impulses, unconsciously we are quite pre-disposed to pattern behaviorsandvulnerable to perception manipulation (hypnosis, illusions, tongue twisters, porn, smoking, White House briefings (ha ha), etc.). Sorry if I've upsetyour apple cart... we all would like to believe we can somehow transcend our own personal idiosyncrasies, but even the will to continuously try and do that is part of our learned response conditioning. 8^)
tired of religion creeping into govt. and science.
Take a stand. Contribute to Tsami relief through this org. Humanists Support Tsunami Disaster Relief EffortsWe at the American Humanist Association have received an outpouring ofinterest from our membership to provide a method for individuals to give asHumanists to the tsunami relief efforts. In response to this call foraction, we have partnered with the Atheist Centre in India through ourinternational body, the International Humanist and Ethical Union.The Atheist Centre manages Arthik Samata Mandal, an established disasterrelief organization that has been active since 1977. This organizationalready has the required Indian Government approval to receive overseas aidfunds, which it will use to address both short-term rehabilitation andlong-term reconstruction needs of tsunami victims.Programs are being designed in cooperation with the affected communitiesaimed at addressing health, food security, habitat, and livelihood needs. Inthe longer term, the Centre will work toward reconstruction and reduction ofvulnerability.Tens of thousands perished in the tsunami and even more are at imminent riskof disease. And the lives and livelihoods of still more have been shattered.As Humanists concerned for the wellbeing of all, we wish to express Humanism's compassion for the survivors who have experienced such lost.HERE'S HOW YOU CAN HELPThe American Humanist Association is making it possible for 100% of yourdonation to reach our overseas partners--we're absorbing all the variousprocessing and transfer costs. If you wish to participate in this program,you can donate online through the AHA's secure website:https://www.americanhumanist.org/secure/disaster.html_You received this message as a subscriber on the list: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To be removed from the list, send any message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]For all list information and functions, including changingyour subscription mode and options, visit the Web page: http://npogroups.org/lists/info/aha
Re: Intelligent Design
One? Perhaps there a few more examples. But why so few? Why are there no walking plants? Plants and animals both evolved from single celled organisms. Is there something about the first plant cells that prevented them from evolving the motor abilities of their animal cousins. Were the evolutionary possibilities of plants and animals limited by those first cells? Just wondering, Harry John Steck at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Venus fly trap? -js Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry
Re: Intelligent Design
At 01:22 pm 05-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nick Palmer one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. I hope that someone will provide a good answer for that one... I certainly don't have it now, but will check my collection of Richard Dawkins material later-on in the mean time, it does bring to mind one very fascinating possibility Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry Aren't you forgetting the Triffids? ;-) G.
Re: Intelligent Design
well yes. the plant cells gained energy from the sun and dyes, the animal like cells fed on sugars and other cells, thus those that had methods of movement fared better. plants still have CELLULAR MOVEMENT. as for intelligent design. i dont doubt the possibility. BUT ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC. its unprovable. and even if an almighty guided it, would we be able to tell? there would have to be SOME mechanism at work. even if that mechanism is chance. a temporary altering of the probabilities of things combining. for the cillia, no, the CURRENT proteins did nothing, and the motor didnt work with out a single one. but there are other earlier versions not as complex, but also not as efficient. as for the chrysalis, like so many things, you have to go WA back to the early invertabrates. change of form from child to adult began then, and became slowly more complex. there is fossil and amber records of SOME of this, but most of it is inference. On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:54:50 +, Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 01:22 pm 05-01-05 -0500, you wrote: Jones Beene at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Nick Palmer one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. I hope that someone will provide a good answer for that one... I certainly don't have it now, but will check my collection of Richard Dawkins material later-on in the mean time, it does bring to mind one very fascinating possibility Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? Harry Aren't you forgetting the Triffids? ;-) G. -- Fairy tales are more than true: not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten. -G.K. Chesterton
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Jed Rothwell wrote: John Steck wrote: I do not think that conclusion precludes fatalism however. Our future is not written in stone somewhere. We exercise free will, but it would be naive to think we are not largely predictable because of severe influences past and present. This strikes me as a false dichotomy. We can be completely bounded by influences and yet also have free will. Of course, the free will would have to be only within the particular set of limitations. Some people have a larger set of limitations than others, hence have less free will. The issue is magnitude, not the presence or absence of free will. While I hesitate to compare people to computers, an analogy does come to mind. Computers are 100% predictable, No, they are not. People are finding that the more complex the computer, the less predictable the results. In fact, some computers can only be checked using other computers to determine if the result is correct. and of course they are completely bounded by a small set of rules, Not any more. Increasingly, computers are asked to generate their own rules. Of course, you can say that the rule to generate your own rule is the limiting rule, hence is the basic boundary. However, I think this approach trivializes the argument. but that does not limit the number and variety of programs a computer can run. The set of programs is infinitely large, and as varied as the programmer's imagination. Programs are already the most complex structures ever devised by people, and there is no reason to think they could not be made far more complex, rivaling DNA and cells in complexity and the number of instructions. When this happens, I expect we will see computer insanity, just as was described in the movie 2001. In other words, computers will act just like humans. At that point, religion will have to readjust its attitude toward humans being the sons of God. (I am not suggesting that people are 100% predictable or bounded by a small set of rules.) People are domesticated primates -- like pet capuchin monkeys. They are as bound and limited by biology and primate psychology as chimpanzees or any other primates. People will never escape, outgrow or transcend these limitations for even one second, any more than a bat can voluntarily stop echolocation, or a plant can stop photosynthesis. Edwin Wilson, with whom I seldom disagree, once described human biophilia for certain landscapes: . . . people want to be on the height looking down; they prefer open, savanna like terrain with scattered trees and copses; they want to be near a body of water, such as a river or lake, or oceanfront. . . . People want to be in the environments in which our species evolved over millions of years. That is, hidden in a copse or rock wall, looking out over savanna and transitional woodland at acacia and similar dominant trees of the African environment. And, why not? Is that such a strange idea? Let me tell you that all mobile animals, down to the very simplest, with tiny brains, have what we call habitat selection, innate habitat selection. They have elaborate algorithms, searching for the right microenvironment -- the right spot to settle -- and hunt, or live and nest. This is a universal trait. Why then, would it be such a strange thing to find at least a residue of humanity's long, long evolutionary history. . . Of course humans and all life seeks that environment in which it can survive. Humans need water and the ability to see danger. It is trivial to suggest this is an ancestral memory. I like the mountains, my wife likes the ocean. Does this mean that we evolved from different places? - The Coming Synergism between Science and the Humanities, lecture given at the University of California, San Diego, broadcast on UCTV I agree with everything up to the last sentence. What we see is not a residue but the living, continuing, embodiment of these traits and this evolutionary history. It is as much a part of our present makeup as our metabolism -- and just as vital to us. These traits have as much power over us today as they did millions of years ago. They will *always* have this power. But here is the point -- or the escape clause, if you will: among those traits are free will and creative thinking. We have free will. So do chimpanzees. I think all mammals do. We also have hands, and tools, and these give us an outlet for creative thinking and action. It opens up an infinite variety of possibilities, both good and evil. A computer is a general purpose logic machine -- it is a universal Turing machine that can, in principle, perform any operation that any other Turing machine can do. Free will, imagination plus hands (or feet, actually -- our most unique appendages) make us general-purpose creativity machines. I suspect we are capable of achieving anything that any carbon based life form on any planet can achieve. As I said in the book: Ever since we
Re: Intelligent Design
Nick Palmer wrote: snip However, I posted one example that has always bothered me, to whit the process of butterfly metamorphosis. Inside the chrysalis, the body of the caterpillar breaks down almost completely and reforms into something very different and, on the face of it, more complex. I could never see that this process could evolve in small steps that were evolutionarily advantageous at each stage. The only response I got was hand waving from some boy wonder science geek who said that evolution has been proved as a theory therefore metamorphosis must have evolved (without actually suggesting how)! For the butterfly and similar cases, my understanding is that there are essentially two organisms. The cells of the adult stage exist within the body of the catepillar stage. When the metamorphosis takes place, essentially the catepillar stage dies and its body dissolves, providing nutrients for the formerly dormant cells of the adult stage to grow. How this 'evolves' is as much of a puzzle as the symbiosis of specific insects and specific orchids, which grow features in their blooms resembling the females of the insect species and generate scents similar to the pherenomes of the females. The deluded males, in trying to mate with the orchids, pollinate in the process. How these two members of different kingdoms develop this symbiosis defies easy 'explanation'. Mike Carrell
Re: WHAT'S NEW Monday, Jan 03 05
Edmund Storms wrote: and of course they are completely bounded by a small set of rules, Not any more. I meant they are bounded by the CPU instruction set, which is still small, and will probably remain small. (I hope.) Of course humans and all life seeks that environment in which it can survive. Humans need water and the ability to see danger. It is trivial to suggest this is an ancestral memory. I like the mountains, my wife likes the ocean. Does this mean that we evolved from different places? No, both locations fit Wilson's criteria. In fact he listed both. He derived these criteria independently but as he pointed out, real estate agents have known about them forever. Land prices are governed by them. Of course not all people everywhere fit the pattern. Any generalization about biology is bound to have many exceptions. - Jed
Re: Intelligent Design
Mike Carrell wrote: Harry Veeder wrote: snip Here is a another. Why aren't there any plants which have the motor ability of animals? There is a counter example, a single celled organism called Euglena, which has self-mobility and carries chloroplasts, so it is both plant and animal. Mobility carries a large energy demand, which is not supplied by photosynthesis. What supplies the Euglena with the energy for self mobility? Harry
Re: intelligent design
I have seldom enjoyed a discussion like this thread has produced. Computers There is an effort underway to produce a system of "quadratic computing" that will be the step beyond parallel computing. The complexities of writing the siftware may seem impossible to overcome.. BUT.. they will be overcome. Quadratic computing will address the needs of future mathematics. Evolution evidence of the past demonstrate humankind had a higher level of intelligence than we offer in Hollywood movies of " cavemen". Man went into caves later.. they didn't come out of caves later. Man wasn't degenerate in early times, neither were they neanderthals. Richard Blank Bkgrd.gif
