Shokushu
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Fri, 20 Apr 2012 08:01:15 +0000
Hey skip to the end for my time saver proposal.
Ah, so you DO tell me to not stay open minded. Finally the truth comes out. However, that's not how science is supposed to work, my friend. EVERYONE should keep an open mind.
The post size was getting out of hand but just because you've trimmed out portions of what I said doesn't mean you can act like I didn't say them.
You shouldn't be open minded about the moon being made of cheese or a pound of feathers being lighter than a pound of rocks. I also don't think you should be open minded about leprosy being a way that God shows you're ritually unclean and that you can or ever could get rid of it by making blood sacrifices to him, but if we extend that through the rest of the Bible then we'd basically just be having a recursive argument.
So just to reiterate: you close your mind on an idea when you've got suitable evidence for what's happening and how it works to rule out that idea. Keep your mind open for the subject in general but as time goes on and we keep making observations about the subject the range of possibilities narrows dramatically.
Example: before we looked into the matter at all you couldn't rule out much about the speed of light. Get two guys on hillsides trying to shine lanterns at each other (well, choose different hillsides so you can figure out the reaction time and take that out of the equation,) and you can see that it's pretty damn fast, as well as make some sketchy estimates of how fast. Set up a mirror on a distant hill and and automatic shutter (like line up a gear in front of a window,) and just by checking when the gear spokes block the returning beam you can get within 1% of the true speed of light. By this point you can close your mind to light traveling instantly or much slower than the calculation. It ******** can't work that way and you've just demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt.
*If you doubt that setup I'll go find a picture or something- it's very straight forward.
I'll be sure to inform all the historians and Bible scholars so they can know too. I'm sure they'll thank you for the info.
http://ed5015.tripod.com/ReligCreationismHistory82.htm
"Creationism: Died in 1925 – Reborn in 198l."
Seriously, the intellectuals all left the idea and now it's being pushed more by politicians. Go have a read.
Okay, this can be easily explained with your own words. I think you can figure it out from here.
Kind of dirty to accuse me of not reading the surrounding passages for context and then turning around to do it yourself, don't you think?
I could easily say there were no kingdoms in the Americas, or that he just showed him a map or something like that... but most likely what happened, is he simply just said I'll give you all these kingdoms. You know damn well what is meant here, yet you are trying to put new meanings on things here that was never intended.
You've edited out the important bits again. Prior to the discovery of the Americas the estimates were bad and we thought the ocean between Europe and India was too small for there to be another continent. This puts a rather huge portion of known empires below the horizon from any mountain or even from ******** orbit. Now with the actual size of the Earth you could see pretty much all of Asian and Africa (Plus Australia) from a point above Saudi Arabia but there's no mountain near there anywhere near high enough to see all of that.
Maybe I'll break out the geometry skills and show what altitude you'd actually need to see the Ivory coast from there- it really shouldn't be necessary though. This clearly doesn't work and you've got no grounds for acting like it does.
Plus if Jesus knew about China how could he justify leaving such a huge empire out of his redemption loophole? Pretty much gotta love Christ to cash in on his get out of hell *free card and it doesn't make sense to love someone you've never even heard of.
Wait, you're now refereeing your own arguments here? It doesn't work like that. You are already telling me I'm giving up. It doesn't work that way. The other person has to decide to give up. You're new to this whole debating thing aren't you? You seem to have no understanding how a debate actually works.I was throwing you a bone since you seemed underprepared. That's invalidated later on though, sort of like how the old testament laws don't count anymore. Jeez, get with the program~
Umm we're far from agreement here. It sounds like you're just debating with yourself.... you're giving your case and then telling me how I'm reacting here. It's kinda like me saying "I'm glad you agree with me that you're wrong about everything and that you're stupid." It just doesn't work that way. What happened with Jacob more or less is the same thing that happened with Moses and the tree. You believe it never happened. I see no resolution here between us.
You proposed a way to reconcile the Bible and science that didn't involve any miracles: Jacob was a trickster and the sticks were just tricky misdirection to fool people. Unless you now reject the scenario you proposed, then you just won this branch of the argument.
Because those are your only options-
God told Moses that the way to know God was by his acts so we've only got two options:
God is morality- the source of it and the ultimate embodiment of it.
God is not morality- it is external to God and what he does and says don't have any particular bearing on what morality actually is.
You can contort language to create a few other options but they're all nonsensical. Feel free to propose one as a joke for me to shoot down though.
Okay, you went on some huge rant here about feathers. What I don't get here is what the chemistry of scales and feathers have to do with how a reptile could become a bird.Went over it. Presented advantages of non-flight feathers. Gave a mechanism for moving from non-flying animals to flying animals.
So what exactly are you saying I don't understand/didn't address?
All ones that fit the mechanisms and selective pressures I described.
Well I can see how you could keep yourself from seeing the use of fused wrist bones but it's hard to reason through those things without having actually studied wing development but instead having taken the shortcut of just adopting this argument from an authority.
You seemed kind of annoyed when I described how feathers chemically make sense as a nice little example of evolution tinkering around with parts that are already there so I'll forgo a similar story for the fine tuning of flight based limbs in order to ask a simple question:
If I were to explain in fine detail how this works would it change your mind?
And yet you got tired of listening before I even finished explaining that first step.
I'll give you the short attention span version:
Theropods had hollow bones (or at least a fair number of them,) despite being land dinos.
The wrists are as fused as your creationist mentor makes it sound- just look at the classic archeopterix fossil- those wrists are clearly bend down. What birds can't do is bend their wrists up. This is the result of the way their wrist meets the two bones in their forearm.
Plus they had those wrists well before flight anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8485263.stm
Or if you'd like to look into it yourself try checking out how many theropods had wrists like this. For better google search results you'll want to look for information about the semilunate carpal bone instead of this fused wrists buzzword. Funny how it makes more sense in a gradual way when you take that word "fused" out of the equation- almost as if it was misdirection perpetrated by some trickster...
*Or other non-miraculous motivations.
But you could still say I haven't explained it (funny how that works when I have to dredge up so much remedial information for a question you asked without understanding it,) so here goes:
Picture feathers coming off of a fairly mobile wrist and fingers, all in the out-and-down direction that birds have them. Now picture longer feathers than that coming off of (as per the mechanisms I described in my previous post.) Tuck them in and the won't get messed up dragging on the ground or tangled in vegetation but bend them out- well jeez, that wasn't so hard.
So it's unscientific of me to deny something you said? Wow. To be honest, we actually DON'T observe anything outside what's referred to as microevolution. Now if you have examples, I'd LOVE to see this. Remember when you couldn't find a decisive declaration of the line between micro and macroevolution? Yeah, you're going to have to give me that before I bother pointing out any of the macro. I'm simply not interested in quibbling with you about whether something is micro or macro when you can't commit to a definition of either.
But since I know you can't find that line it's unfair for me to just withhold information pending your completion of the impossible task, sooooo-
Explain to me where you are happy drawing the line personally. If you have a hard time phrasing it as a useful definition then you could present a few examples and I can try and come up with a definition from that which you will find suitable. I'm happy to work with you on this so long as you're patient enough to deal with me trying to get you to be very specific.
Okay, I'll humor you here. How is this tested? Actually, how COULD you test the belief that humans descended from apes? I'd like to hear this.One nifty way is by checking for endogenous retroviruses. You already know that some viruses go and insert their DNA into your genome when they infect you. Rarely this will happen with germ line cells (ones that lead to sperm/eggs,) and they suffer a mutation or other such effect which disables the viral gene.
-this is easier to picture with sperm since there are millions of them and billions of viral packets to attempt to infect them, all multiplied by billions, well ok, just a few millions historically, of individuals for this to play out in. But nonetheless, it doesn't matter how improbably the individual event may seem, it happens quite a lot through the years.
So there's this inactive viral gene sitting in a genome and it gets passed on to any progeny. Well what do you know, that sounds just like a trait that you can easily trace with a pedigree chart. Gotta sequence a specific section of DNA to spot it but that's easy these days- hell, you can have your whole genome sequenced at middle class type incomes these days if you're willing to fork over the cash.
So then, what we're looking for is a viral gene, at a specific position on specific chromosomes with specific mutations that shut it off. You take a wide sample of ape species and you find some of these that we all share- big whoop. You find some humans, gorillas, and chimps share- well that's slightly more telling. You look for some that gorillas and orangutans share but not chimps and humans aaaaand, you come up with nothing. This makes sense since orangutan ancestors split off earlier so it matches the family tree we would expect.
And of course you can find lots that only gorillas have since they split off quite a ways back and have piled up new endogenous retroviruses since then.
Repeat the process looking for human/chimp endogenous retroviruses vs say human/gorilla ones and it tells the same story. I actually cut this off at the genus level but if you blow it open for species level then you've got tons of different comparisons to make from any old outgroup monkey all the way through the extant ape family, plus a few extinct species when we're lucky enough to get a nice copy of their genome.
There are lots of neat little genetic patterns like this that we can spot.
No, what I mean is, we can't study humans descending from apes, or dinosaurs turning into birds. How can this be studied?Look at the bones!
But no, there are a wide range of tools in Biology for examining these things. Check out that evidences for macroevolution link since it's going to be redundant for me to go back over the general concepts.
[******** mountain of evidence yo. Ask for it and I'll pile so much in front of you that your head will spin. Okay, I'm asking for it. Where is this mountain of evidence I've been asking for all this time? So far, all I got is you say it exists. I know you think your word is fact, but to me, your word doesn't mean anything. I want some REAL facts here, not just your word.
Article on Dakota
BBC article (3 May 2005) on fossil fish (roughly 450 mya) discovered in South Africa
BBC article on oldest known insect fossil
National Geographic article (26 March 2007) on a 95-mya marine lizard fossil
National Geographic article (21 April 200 cool on lizard evolution
National Geographic article on oldest live-birth fossil (28 May 200 cool
New Scientist article (9 June 200 cool on E. coli bacterium populations and the ability to metabolize citrate
Wired report on dinosaur mummy (December 2007)
Edit: there's about ten more entries here on the submission form but they don't show up in the post for some reason.
I guess that's an alright tip of the iceberg for now. I didn't try to target these to our particular conversation at all but they do generally revolve around one conflict or another between creationism and science.
Do you have access to any peer review article databases? I can give you all primary sources if so but otherwise I'll try and keep linking lots of the news article ones.
I'll let the scientific community know. I'm sure they'll thank you.Thanks for taking that out of context. Do I do the same to you particularly often? I know I halt midway into a paragraph here and there but I don't try to spot places where you're being rhetorical and throw a fit about it. I can't believe you can't tell I'm going somewhere with these that is very explanation reliant.
Which ones? Or does this mean you read what's posted on talkorigins and other biased evolutionist sites that aren't really interested in the truth so much as promoting a belief system?Wow, I don't even know where to begin dealing with that bias.
Mammalian Species, Evolution, Naturwissenschaften, Journal of Mammalogy-
Lots of select articles primarily out of the JSTOR catalog-
Rummel R. J. Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. 1997 http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
Staub, Ervin. The Roots of Evil The Origins of Genocide and other Group Violence. UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1989
Colaresi, Michael; Carey,Sabine C. To Kill or Protect: Security Forces, Domestic Institutions, and Genocide. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 200; 52; 39-67
Davidson, Richard J; Harrington, Anne. Visions of Compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature. Oxford University Press, 2002
Brannigan, Augustine. Criminology and the Holocaust: Xenophobia, Evolution, and Genocide. SAGE 2002
McCullough M. Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct.
Rabeling, C. Brown, J.M. Verhaagh, M. Newly discovered sister lineage sheds light on early ant evolution
How many do you read?
No selection?
I've been ready for some details. But if observe test and study is a good description, then why is it we've never observed or tested humans descending from apes and yet it's still called "science?" If you say we have, then where are these observations and tests? Link please?
Early hominid biogeography
An Early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain
Integrating the genotype and phenotype in hominid paleontology
A modern human pattern of dental development in Lower Pleistocene hominids from Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain)
Older age becomes common late in human evolution
Gaia ate half of my post because these take so long to write so I'm just going to cut if off here. Turns out you can't just refresh these piece of s**t forms by hitting preview. Back to select all and ctrl c before I try to continue these ******** things.
*I might go thinking I've said things I haven't thanks to this. My apologies in advance, just let me know that it was probably in the text that was lose if I refer to a conversation that never happened.
-
Ok so I'm a bit irked by the huge block of time replying eats up as well. My half-thought-out idea for dealing with that is to make a sort of table of contents for the different threads of this conversation. When we resolve one we can cross it up and open up a new one. I'm thinking that "idea vs idea" is the best way to condense them so that we remember what they were about. How does that sound?
Brispir
Shokushu
You shouldn't stay open minded after you've already had a good look at the evidence.
The post size was getting out of hand but just because you've trimmed out portions of what I said doesn't mean you can act like I didn't say them.
You shouldn't be open minded about the moon being made of cheese or a pound of feathers being lighter than a pound of rocks. I also don't think you should be open minded about leprosy being a way that God shows you're ritually unclean and that you can or ever could get rid of it by making blood sacrifices to him, but if we extend that through the rest of the Bible then we'd basically just be having a recursive argument.
So just to reiterate: you close your mind on an idea when you've got suitable evidence for what's happening and how it works to rule out that idea. Keep your mind open for the subject in general but as time goes on and we keep making observations about the subject the range of possibilities narrows dramatically.
Example: before we looked into the matter at all you couldn't rule out much about the speed of light. Get two guys on hillsides trying to shine lanterns at each other (well, choose different hillsides so you can figure out the reaction time and take that out of the equation,) and you can see that it's pretty damn fast, as well as make some sketchy estimates of how fast. Set up a mirror on a distant hill and and automatic shutter (like line up a gear in front of a window,) and just by checking when the gear spokes block the returning beam you can get within 1% of the true speed of light. By this point you can close your mind to light traveling instantly or much slower than the calculation. It ******** can't work that way and you've just demonstrated it beyond any reasonable doubt.
*If you doubt that setup I'll go find a picture or something- it's very straight forward.
Quote:
Shokushu
But no, creationism as we know it today is fairly new. There have been times when the Abrahamic religions got about as extreme in their interpretation of it all but in general people saw far more metaphor in the Bible than modern creation would accept.
I'll be sure to inform all the historians and Bible scholars so they can know too. I'm sure they'll thank you for the info.
http://ed5015.tripod.com/ReligCreationismHistory82.htm
"Creationism: Died in 1925 – Reborn in 198l."
Seriously, the intellectuals all left the idea and now it's being pushed more by politicians. Go have a read.
Quote:
Shokushu
You're not going to take my word for it so let's toss another passage into the mix:
Daniel 4:10-11 talks about a dream Nebuchadnezzar had where there was a tree so tall it could be seen from the ends of the Earth.
Daniel 4:10-11 talks about a dream Nebuchadnezzar had where there was a tree so tall it could be seen from the ends of the Earth.
Okay, this can be easily explained with your own words.
Quote:
Daniel 4:10-11 talks about a dream
Kind of dirty to accuse me of not reading the surrounding passages for context and then turning around to do it yourself, don't you think?
Quote:
Shokushu
Mathew 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
I could easily say there were no kingdoms in the Americas, or that he just showed him a map or something like that... but most likely what happened, is he simply just said I'll give you all these kingdoms. You know damn well what is meant here, yet you are trying to put new meanings on things here that was never intended.
You've edited out the important bits again. Prior to the discovery of the Americas the estimates were bad and we thought the ocean between Europe and India was too small for there to be another continent. This puts a rather huge portion of known empires below the horizon from any mountain or even from ******** orbit. Now with the actual size of the Earth you could see pretty much all of Asian and Africa (Plus Australia) from a point above Saudi Arabia but there's no mountain near there anywhere near high enough to see all of that.
Maybe I'll break out the geometry skills and show what altitude you'd actually need to see the Ivory coast from there- it really shouldn't be necessary though. This clearly doesn't work and you've got no grounds for acting like it does.
Plus if Jesus knew about China how could he justify leaving such a huge empire out of his redemption loophole? Pretty much gotta love Christ to cash in on his get out of hell *free card and it doesn't make sense to love someone you've never even heard of.
Quote:
Shokushu
I'm a bit disappointed though, as you're not even very familiar with the apologetics for this one. You should have already pulled out the argument that this was talking about the habitable area of the Earth- that the corners and edges and such refer to coasts and cliff sides.
..I'm cool with letting you drop this one (maybe study more about what shape the Bible implies for the Earth and come back to this argument some day,) to focus on things you've got a more thorough understanding of.
..I'm cool with letting you drop this one (maybe study more about what shape the Bible implies for the Earth and come back to this argument some day,) to focus on things you've got a more thorough understanding of.
Wait, you're now refereeing your own arguments here? It doesn't work like that. You are already telling me I'm giving up. It doesn't work that way. The other person has to decide to give up. You're new to this whole debating thing aren't you? You seem to have no understanding how a debate actually works.
Quote:
Shokushu
Well if you don't think God is the fountain of morality or that God isn't perfect then it's easy to reject the need for miracles to have any meaning or impact on humans.
I think we're close enough to agreement about Jacob though. It's nice to actually reach a resolution to some of these to be honest.
I think we're close enough to agreement about Jacob though. It's nice to actually reach a resolution to some of these to be honest.
You proposed a way to reconcile the Bible and science that didn't involve any miracles: Jacob was a trickster and the sticks were just tricky misdirection to fool people. Unless you now reject the scenario you proposed, then you just won this branch of the argument.
Quote:
Also, again,I'll repeat myself here as it seems you didn't actually read what I wrote. Just because a miracle happened, doesn't mean there's something to learn from it. I NEVER said I thought God wasn't the source of morality, or that God was imperfect. YOU said that I believe that.
Because those are your only options-
God told Moses that the way to know God was by his acts so we've only got two options:
God is morality- the source of it and the ultimate embodiment of it.
God is not morality- it is external to God and what he does and says don't have any particular bearing on what morality actually is.
You can contort language to create a few other options but they're all nonsensical. Feel free to propose one as a joke for me to shoot down though.
Quote:
Shokushu
hat's a profoundly shitty comprehension of evolution..........could easily outperform them?
Okay, you went on some huge rant here about feathers. What I don't get here is what the chemistry of scales and feathers have to do with how a reptile could become a bird.
So what exactly are you saying I don't understand/didn't address?
Quote:
As i said, even if scales DID change to feathers, there's still a LOT of changes to be made before it could become a bird.
Well I can see how you could keep yourself from seeing the use of fused wrist bones but it's hard to reason through those things without having actually studied wing development but instead having taken the shortcut of just adopting this argument from an authority.
You seemed kind of annoyed when I described how feathers chemically make sense as a nice little example of evolution tinkering around with parts that are already there so I'll forgo a similar story for the fine tuning of flight based limbs in order to ask a simple question:
If I were to explain in fine detail how this works would it change your mind?
Quote:
Again, what I said was, it takes more than just turning scales into feathers to make a bird.
Quote:
You then respond with a detailed description of how a scale could have turned into a feather. You gave an answer... but to a question I didn't ask. I know a lot of times an evolutionist thinks just putting feathers on a lizard makes it a bird because I have never heard an explanation of the other features that differenciate birds from reptiles.
I'll give you the short attention span version:
Theropods had hollow bones (or at least a fair number of them,) despite being land dinos.
The wrists are as fused as your creationist mentor makes it sound- just look at the classic archeopterix fossil- those wrists are clearly bend down. What birds can't do is bend their wrists up. This is the result of the way their wrist meets the two bones in their forearm.
Plus they had those wrists well before flight anyway. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8485263.stm
Or if you'd like to look into it yourself try checking out how many theropods had wrists like this. For better google search results you'll want to look for information about the semilunate carpal bone instead of this fused wrists buzzword. Funny how it makes more sense in a gradual way when you take that word "fused" out of the equation- almost as if it was misdirection perpetrated by some trickster...
*Or other non-miraculous motivations.
But you could still say I haven't explained it (funny how that works when I have to dredge up so much remedial information for a question you asked without understanding it,) so here goes:
Picture feathers coming off of a fairly mobile wrist and fingers, all in the out-and-down direction that birds have them. Now picture longer feathers than that coming off of (as per the mechanisms I described in my previous post.) Tuck them in and the won't get messed up dragging on the ground or tangled in vegetation but bend them out- well jeez, that wasn't so hard.
Quote:
Shokushu
I've already told you we observe it. It's unscientific of you to deny it
But since I know you can't find that line it's unfair for me to just withhold information pending your completion of the impossible task, sooooo-
Explain to me where you are happy drawing the line personally. If you have a hard time phrasing it as a useful definition then you could present a few examples and I can try and come up with a definition from that which you will find suitable. I'm happy to work with you on this so long as you're patient enough to deal with me trying to get you to be very specific.
Quote:
Shokushu
We test it all the time. Do you actually care to learn how we test it or are you going to just keep saying that we don't?
-this is easier to picture with sperm since there are millions of them and billions of viral packets to attempt to infect them, all multiplied by billions, well ok, just a few millions historically, of individuals for this to play out in. But nonetheless, it doesn't matter how improbably the individual event may seem, it happens quite a lot through the years.
So there's this inactive viral gene sitting in a genome and it gets passed on to any progeny. Well what do you know, that sounds just like a trait that you can easily trace with a pedigree chart. Gotta sequence a specific section of DNA to spot it but that's easy these days- hell, you can have your whole genome sequenced at middle class type incomes these days if you're willing to fork over the cash.
So then, what we're looking for is a viral gene, at a specific position on specific chromosomes with specific mutations that shut it off. You take a wide sample of ape species and you find some of these that we all share- big whoop. You find some humans, gorillas, and chimps share- well that's slightly more telling. You look for some that gorillas and orangutans share but not chimps and humans aaaaand, you come up with nothing. This makes sense since orangutan ancestors split off earlier so it matches the family tree we would expect.
And of course you can find lots that only gorillas have since they split off quite a ways back and have piled up new endogenous retroviruses since then.
Repeat the process looking for human/chimp endogenous retroviruses vs say human/gorilla ones and it tells the same story. I actually cut this off at the genus level but if you blow it open for species level then you've got tons of different comparisons to make from any old outgroup monkey all the way through the extant ape family, plus a few extinct species when we're lucky enough to get a nice copy of their genome.
There are lots of neat little genetic patterns like this that we can spot.
Quote:
Shokushu
Ok, even with creationist propaganda I don't see how you can think we don't study these things.
But no, there are a wide range of tools in Biology for examining these things. Check out that evidences for macroevolution link since it's going to be redundant for me to go back over the general concepts.
[******** mountain of evidence yo. Ask for it and I'll pile so much in front of you that your head will spin. Okay, I'm asking for it. Where is this mountain of evidence I've been asking for all this time? So far, all I got is you say it exists. I know you think your word is fact, but to me, your word doesn't mean anything. I want some REAL facts here, not just your word.
Article on Dakota
BBC article (3 May 2005) on fossil fish (roughly 450 mya) discovered in South Africa
BBC article on oldest known insect fossil
National Geographic article (26 March 2007) on a 95-mya marine lizard fossil
National Geographic article (21 April 200 cool on lizard evolution
National Geographic article on oldest live-birth fossil (28 May 200 cool
New Scientist article (9 June 200 cool on E. coli bacterium populations and the ability to metabolize citrate
Wired report on dinosaur mummy (December 2007)
Edit: there's about ten more entries here on the submission form but they don't show up in the post for some reason.
I guess that's an alright tip of the iceberg for now. I didn't try to target these to our particular conversation at all but they do generally revolve around one conflict or another between creationism and science.
Do you have access to any peer review article databases? I can give you all primary sources if so but otherwise I'll try and keep linking lots of the news article ones.
Quote:
Shokushu
Actually it is my decision.
I'll let the scientific community know. I'm sure they'll thank you.
Quote:
Shokushu
but I actually read the journals
Which ones? Or does this mean you read what's posted on talkorigins and other biased evolutionist sites that aren't really interested in the truth so much as promoting a belief system?
Mammalian Species, Evolution, Naturwissenschaften, Journal of Mammalogy-
Lots of select articles primarily out of the JSTOR catalog-
Rummel R. J. Statistics of Democide: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. 1997 http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM
Staub, Ervin. The Roots of Evil The Origins of Genocide and other Group Violence. UK: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1989
Colaresi, Michael; Carey,Sabine C. To Kill or Protect: Security Forces, Domestic Institutions, and Genocide. Journal of Conflict Resolution. 200; 52; 39-67
Davidson, Richard J; Harrington, Anne. Visions of Compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature. Oxford University Press, 2002
Brannigan, Augustine. Criminology and the Holocaust: Xenophobia, Evolution, and Genocide. SAGE 2002
McCullough M. Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct.
Rabeling, C. Brown, J.M. Verhaagh, M. Newly discovered sister lineage sheds light on early ant evolution
How many do you read?
Quote:
Shokushu
Pick one of those things you want me to present and we can get back into productive discourse.
Quote:
Shokushu
Observe test and study is an alright description of what I'm talking about. Are you ready to start going into details yet?
Early hominid biogeography
An Early Pleistocene hominin mandible from Atapuerca-TD6, Spain
Integrating the genotype and phenotype in hominid paleontology
A modern human pattern of dental development in Lower Pleistocene hominids from Atapuerca-TD6 (Spain)
Older age becomes common late in human evolution
Gaia ate half of my post because these take so long to write so I'm just going to cut if off here. Turns out you can't just refresh these piece of s**t forms by hitting preview. Back to select all and ctrl c before I try to continue these ******** things.
*I might go thinking I've said things I haven't thanks to this. My apologies in advance, just let me know that it was probably in the text that was lose if I refer to a conversation that never happened.
-
Ok so I'm a bit irked by the huge block of time replying eats up as well. My half-thought-out idea for dealing with that is to make a sort of table of contents for the different threads of this conversation. When we resolve one we can cross it up and open up a new one. I'm thinking that "idea vs idea" is the best way to condense them so that we remember what they were about. How does that sound?
