Since they became the first openly gay couple in Malawi to be engaged, Tiwonge Chimbalanga and Steven Monjeza have been arrested, put in prison and charged with offences that could lead to a 14-year jail sentence. Between true love and gay martyrdom, however, is the brutal reality of life in a Malawi prison. Yesterday, in their first interview since being jailed, the pair claimed that they had been beaten in prison, and demanded to go to court to prove their innocence.
While Mr Chimbalanga, 20, who dresses as a woman, spoke defiantly of his love for the man he plans to marry, Mr Monjeza, 22, said that he was “drunk” when they met and was considering ending their engagement. The couple, who denied three charges of unnatural practices between males and gross indecency, performed a public engagement ceremony in front of 500 onlookers last weekend. They were arrested two days later.
170 comments:
So, do you feel this was a just way to handle this situation?
I don't.
Putting people in jail for being gay is wack. I think homosexuality is a sin and wrong, but I don't want folks jailed for it, and I don't want them killed for it. There sin, like most sins, impacts them and their relationship with God. It has a very minimal impact on me and my family. I'd rather let God deal with them, not man.
Hey Big Man.
Do I feel it was just?
I don't know. That's a good question.
Not sure about that.
However, I think that on a deeper level it may be an appropriate response to defend a society from a larger global and insidious attempt to normalize the abnormal.
I reject the meme that these men were "Gay".
"Gay" is group identity term invented for political reasons.
Homosexuality is a behavior. Not an identity.
Aberrant behavior. A deviation from the norm. Deviant behavior.
It is what a person does. Not WHO a person is.
The whole "Gay" thing is a Hegelian head fake.
Big Man, I invite you to imagine if other participants in deviant behavior ... um ... pedophiles for instance... suddenly recast themselves as ... let's say ... "Festives" and claimed they were born that way.
That it was their identity.
If after a period of years they were successful at establishing that meme, it is only a matter of time before they could demand the rights of every other Group Identity, from Blacks to Hispanics to Christians to Women to Jews (well .. maybe not but Jews but you get the point).
Imagine if people addicted to cocaine and wanted to smoke crack in the privacy of their own crackhouse were able to create an identity myth which insists they were born ... "Baseheads".
Would it be just to imprison Baseheads for publicly smoking crack?
Now. These men weren't quietly boning each other in the ass in the privacy of their own hut.
They were very publicly conducting a MARRIAGE ceremony. (Engagement).
Which is apparently a tremendous affront to the Malawi people.
I don't buy into the whole "sin" thing. I don't get that. To me it is obviously nasty.
I remember the look of confusion and disgust on my 5 year old's face when he saw two men kissing on the boardwalk at Venice Beach.
I didn't have to teach him that was nasty any more than I had to teach him doo doo was nasty.
He just knew. Because it is.
I think it is hypocritical of America or Americans or any of us to dictate to the people of Malawi how they should conduct their society.
Our society is decadent. Our society is collapsing. Our society is sick.
Our society is suffering the consequences of everything we were warned about in scripture.
These men are human beings and I wish them well.
I would advise them to dig deep inside and acknowledge their own manhood.
I would love and support them and encourage them to heal the psychological trauma that makes them think they want another man to fuck them in the ass.
In the Semetic traditions the punishment comes in when the offender makes a *party* of an unlawful act. Undermining the authority of the state by promulgating an act considered unlawful.
At the same time the state isn't allowed to enter a citizen's private domain. No search warrant concept. Now, it's at your discretion to publicize your personal criminal activities (whatever is considered criminal), however in doing so you are already aware of the consequences. Like theft, you may have a secret stash, but you know if you disclose your "earnings" not only will they be confiscated, but you are at risk at putting yourself at the mercy of the court.
As for it being a sin impacting only them, is a debate in itself. Dope slang'n has no immediate effect on me, but someone believes it's harmful somewhere down the line in society. That some how it's effecting those not connected. At least that's the inference. I'm seeing that, that school of thought is being used in this case.
DV
I think pedophelia does come from an internal source. As does homosexuality.
I do believe people are born with certain predilections that can be encouraged through their experiences in life. I don't think that ALL gay folks just choose one day that they'd rather be gay. Some definitely do, but not all.
I think some of those folks are born with an urge that goes against God's plan for mankind. They, obviously, have to struggle for the rest of their lives to battle that urge. Just like certain folks that are drug addicts. Yes, they have a harder road to travel than me, but we all have crosses to bear.
I don't see how you can reference the warnings of scripture, and ignore the central role the concept of "sin" plays in scripture. Sin, and its consequences, are what we are seeing now, in my opinion, and each of us as sinners bears some measure of responsibility.
I'm not trying to the people of that country how to run their lives. I'm not protesting, I'm not encouraging the U.S. government to intervene. But, I am saying that imprisoning and possibly killing these men is unjust. That's where I take my stand.
Gee Chee
I acknowledged your point about the impact of the sin of homosexuality by saying that the impact on my life is "minimal." I did not say it's non-existent because it's not.
As I attempt to raise my children with a particular moral code, I will have to fight against a society that increasingly finds my moral code outdated and idiotic. That impacts my life and my children's lives, but I honestly don't see that impact as being dire or overwhelming. I am a firm believer in the theory that if you take control of your children's mental intake, and are vigilant about what you expose them to, you can raise them to have your values. The whole "Train up a child..." model.
Drug dealing, particularly when it occurs in my neighborhood, has a more serious impact on my quality of life. However, if it's not happening in my neighborhood, it has less of an impact, although I still feel the pain it inflicts on the black community as a whole.
Big Man, I feel you, only thing is that we are up against a nature in humans of not wanting to feel out of place or alone, rejected, pressured, politically correct. Even though women may know it's a bad idea to perm their hair, cut it short then substitute it with weave, it is done because of their surroundings. The group is doing it. Few are able to stand out in the group. Those who do usually become the trend setters, the catalysts. Children are easily persuaded even if it's against how they were raised. That's why the TV is the PERFECT weapon. It is through the repetition of exposure that is the trick. Yeah some escape, just like some fish slip through the fishers net back into the water.
"I think pedophelia does come from an internal source. As does homosexuality." BM
What doesn't come from an "internal source"?
Does incest also come from an internal source?
One could argue that cannibalism comes from an eternal source.
The urge to murder comes from an "internal source".
The urge to commit suicide.
The urge to have sex with animals, it could be argued, comes from an "internal source".
That doesn't prohibit a society from deeming it taboo and regulating those behaviors accordingly.
The problem with selectively policing some societies for regulating some taboos is that it places tremendous power in the hands of the "Global Taboo Regulators" (that's what the One World Order shit is about).
"I think some of those folks are born with an urge that goes against God's plan for mankind." BM
I don't know about that either.
I'm not sure it's that simple.
'10% of the population is born that way' meme never made sense to me ... despite the memetic bullies.
How many male horses are born with the urge to have sex with other male horses to the point of orgasm?
How many male lions screw other male lions?
How many male butterflies have sex with other male butterflies?
How many male bottle-nose dolphins have sex with other male bottle-nose dolphins?
I don't see examples of that behavior anywhere in nature.
Therefor it is difficult for me to accept the conclusion that is "natural".
It strikes me more as an illness.
The people who have succumbed to this illness need to be treated with dignity and respect and love and with treatment.
Insitutionalizing their illness by elevating it to Group Identity Status poisons everyone.
I admire the people of Malawi for acknowledging the obvious:
Two men cannot "marry" any more than a square peg can fit into a round hole.
"That's why the TV is the PERFECT weapon. It is through the repetition of exposure that is the trick." GC
smart
Why worry?
The Agenda is set.
Click here
Sex will be for pleasure only.
"Couples will stop having sex to conceive babies within a decade and use IVF instead, scientists said yesterday.
They say 30-somethings will increasingly rely on artificial methods of fertilisation because natural human reproduction is 'fairly inefficient'.
It means that in future, sex will be nothing more than a leisure activity - the latest blow to the Christian idea that the role of sex is to produce children."
Techno's.
Hot Wax is a beast.
Man. Hit me up.
We've got to get you a TV show.
But nobody's getting treatment in jail. And based on the article it seems the punishment has only made one man defiant and the other scared sh*tless.
Hot Wax is a beast.-DV
I know right, but don't forget DMG. He does the good work and sends out email blasts on the DL of everything Wax posts like he's discovering it all on his own.
I agree OM.
Nobody is getting treatment in jail.
Which is why I would suggest the people of the United States do something about the 700,000 drug addicts we have in jail before we lecture the people of Malawi about the 2 homosexuals they have in jail.
"He does the good work and sends out email blasts on the DL of everything Wax posts like he's discovering it all on his own."
what do you mean Gee?
DMG know he be emptying out the paper trey at the nurses station printing out everything Wax post.
Then logon & pop off the black Barney Fifes with the bayonet and one bullet:
"Locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close-combat."
Meanwhile, back in the lab, "Yeah me and Dr. Bowen go way back."
LOL. aight aight. I can see that.
"Locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close-combat."
Anybody notice that the "experts" in the study were...Veterinarians? Not that the study is good or bad...but why are doggie doctors publishing anything about IVF...rather than say someone who actually performs IVF?
"'Within the next five to ten years, couples approaching 40 will assess the IVF industry first when they want to have a baby.' He based his hunch on the fact that in cattle, IVF works almost every time. He said there was no reason that success rate could not be replicated in humans."
IVF is expensive. And invasive. I don't think folks are going to quite having sex in favor of IVF to procreate. Sure if you are in your 40's and well off (usually costs about $10,000/pop, and often takes multiple attempts before success) trying IVF may be AN option, but the FIRST option is a stretch. This study seems pretty silly.
The paper tray in my office is quite full Gee-Chee. The stuff Waxy is posting wouldn't be worth prtinting on toilet paper. But if you are amused Gee-Chee...well, enjoy? Why don't you send me some of your artwork. I'll do an ass wipe test to see which is more absorbent--your art or Waxy's crazy ass "data".
DV
Male animals do have sex with other male animals. Personally, I think this is a dominance-inspired behavior similar to what you see in jail, but I have seen the articles from folks about homosexual sex occurring in animals.
My point about the internal urge was in response to your comment that homosexuality is strictly a choice. If that's not what you meant, then I stand corrected, but that's what you seemed to be saying.
And, I don't see why it's so hard for you to believe that 10 percent of the population could be born with homosexual leanings given your repeat conversations on the long-term impacts of the food we eat, the water we drink and the air we breathe. If you believe that there is a consistent corruption of the natural world an that corruption affects all life, then why couldn't this 10 percent idea be a manifestation of that corruption?
That's not my personal belief, but for someone with your espoused beliefs, that would seem like a simple connection to make.
My point was that homosexuality is like certain other behaviors tgat run contrary to God's will. Just because we have an urge does not mean we should submit to that urge. We as humans have to learn to control impulses that run contrary to the will of God. Some folks choose to, some folks choose not to. I'm not in favor of jailing them unless their choices have a serious impact on the lives of others.
I don't see homosexuality as any more sinful, or abhorrent in the eyes of God than fornication or adultery, and my basis for that is examining the Bible's teaching on all sexual sin.
In fact, the Bible is far more concerned with fornication and adultery in both the New Testament and Old Testament than it is with homosexuality. Yet, while folks want to outlaw homosexual behavior, they are quite fine with behavior like fornication and adultery that runs contrary to the teachings of Christianity and Islam.
Now some folks, like yourself, don't oppose homosexuality from a sin-based perspective, that's fine. But, even from the "unhealthy" perspective you have to explain why this particular unhealthy behavior is more deterimental to society than other unhealthy behaviors.
Also, I don't support the U.S. going in and telling other countries how to govern, I've said that. And, the term "marriage" has the meaning the individuals using it give it. I don't find it anymore troubling to have two gay men marry than I do to have Larry King working on marriage number eight. Both of them our outside of God's will, and he will handle it, accordingly. I'm skeptical about folks using God's will to justify policing certain behaviors because of the past history around this practice.
Gee Chee
No doubt. Peer pressure is a beast. I read a study that found that your children's peers often have more impact on their behavior than you do.
So, I limit exposure to television. I am careful about what ideas are promoted as normal around my kids. I talk to them, even though they are still toddlers, about values and manhood. And I pray.
I'm cool with that approach, and I don't need to arrest and jail gay men to feel more secure.
Why don't you send me some of your artwork. I'll do an ass wipe test to see which is more absorbent--your art or Waxy's crazy ass "data".-DMG
Ok. you got that one.
Wax
Nah son. That ain't happening without mass sterilization of the general public.
As DMG pointed out, God's way of making babies is more cost-effective and enjoyable. Poor folks can't afford to do that lab stuff.
Now, you could make the case that Aldous Huxley was right, and it's only a matter of time before mandatory contraception is the norm and baby farms are a must, but I mean, I don't see it.
It's far cheaper and easier to create a willing workforce by allowing poor folks to do the do naturally than it is to take the mechanical route. And we know humans like things cheap and easy.
^^^But Big Man, we pay like a hunnid & change for 10 pills in a bottle yet vaccinations are free, not only that, isn't it in some cases parents get some sort of check for one of those drugs that are given to their children? A social worker was telling me about that.
I don't think they're worried about profits as much as agenda. They don't need our money no more than Obama needed it with that "grassroots" sleight of hand.
Nah Gee Chee, vaccinations ain't free. Not that I know of.
I guess we disagree on the concern over profits. Capitalism depends on profits and workforces. Cheap, easily accessible labor.
Rich folks don't want to do work. Any work. So, they need poor folks around to do it for them.
Why waste their time and energy figuring out how to create poor folks in a lab, when they can get them for free just by letting poor people screw around?
Maybe you could argue that you can build a more docile human in a lab, and I can see that. But, for some reason I'm still not convinced. People take the easy route 90 percent of the time, and the easy route says let the poor people keep making babies.
"DV Male animals do have sex with other male animals. Personally," Big Man
Sure about that Big Man?
I mean, I've heard that myth too. Couple of male penguins in captivity in Seattle or Tampa Fl or some damn place supposedly got a little "close" and the media treated it like the first Moon Landing.
But upon closer examination ... aint no male animals in nature having sex to the point of climax.
Shit, if dry-humping = sex most cats lost their virginity in the 6th grade.
Homosexuality is well documented in the animal kingdom.
YOU might want to start here
or here
and here
Head about to explode?
DV, what's wrong with your site man? I post stuff and it just disappears, only to reappear later.
What makes those references trust worthy sources again DMG? Why are we trusting their reads of animal behavior? The same people if given grants/fellowships to study behavioral patterns of "poor little deprived Negroid children" may arrive at some conclusions that you may deem as being short sighted.
LOL.
G.T.F.O.H.
"Bagemihl writes that the presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until the 1990s due to possible observer bias caused by social attitudes towards LGBT people ..."
Come on bra.
Animal homosexuality wasn't observed because of bias against LGBWhatevers ...
boy.
Group identity politics is a bitch!
Muhfuggas can shape some memes
"From male killer whales that ride the dorsal fin of another male to female bonobos that rub their genitals together, the animal kingdom tolerates all kinds of lifestyles. "
Big Maaaaaaaaannnnn .... please
-- Explaining Seemingly "Homosexual" Animal Behavior
Bonobos are a typical example of this "borrowing." These primates from the chimpanzee family engage in seemingly sexual behavior to express acceptance and other affective states. Thus, Frans B. M. de Waal, who spent hundreds of hours observing and filming bonobos, says:
There are two reasons to believe sexual activity is the bonobo's answer to avoiding conflict.
First, anything, not just food, that arouses the interest of more than one bonobo at a time tends to result in sexual contact. If two bonobos approach a cardboard box thrown into their enclosure, they will briefly mount each other before playing with the box. Such situations lead to squabbles in most other species. But bonobos are quite tolerant, perhaps because they use sex to divert attention and to diffuse tension.
Second, bonobo sex often occurs in aggressive contexts totally unrelated to food. A jealous male might chase another away from a female, after which the two males reunite and engage in scrotal rubbing. Or after a female hits a juvenile, the latter's mother may lunge at the aggressor, an action that is immediately followed by genital rubbing between the two adults.[7]
Like bonobos, other animals will mount another of the same sex and engage in seemingly "homosexual" behavior, although their motivation may differ. Dogs, for example, usually do so to express dominance. Cesar Ades, ethologist and professor of psychology at the University of S‹o Paulo, Brazil, explains, "When two males mate, what is present is a demonstration of power, not sex."[8]
^^^
Yes
Yes
...and those that read homosexual behavior in animals, how do they categorize dogs humping stuff-animals?
Man, homosexuality doesn't just cross God, IT REFUTES the Darwinian theory of reproduction and survival AND PUTS IN ITS PLACE the modern evolutionary theory of descent with MODIFICATION.
Meaning, homosexuals CHOOSE to self-annihilate as the example of MODIFICATION.
^^^
Yes Thordady,
Only people without ANY concept of a Creator/of an Intelligent Being can believe that animals are basically humans waiting to evolve, sharing the quality of desire i.e. sexual perversion overriding their instinct to survive. Animals of opposite species don't show a want to mate with say a species it usually takes as prey. Why? Animals don't even look to assert their power for the sake of proving something, as we see performed here by some. A grizzly bare being chased off by a mother mountain lion protecting her cubs. Does that make since? Yet that same grizzly will fight another full adult male grizzly. Why? Where is that perversion of power to dominate something weaker just because like a human would do? That's because animals are interested in survival. Yet animals are suppose to be giving in to sexual perversions.
The phenomenon of the "moderate Vulcan-like unbiased calculated patron of truth without any prejudices" scientist.
Note: Dudes REFUSE to admit that their belief in something is faith-based. Believing their information source is exclusively sincere and truthful. Subconsciously excepting a measure of infallibility with a small insignificant margin of error. Otherwise they would go out and study every field available to arrive at a self investigated conclusion. They are not going to do that because it is unreasonable. Yet they find it reasonable to trust particular sources. Which is fine, but they are in denial that this is apart of obtaining information. The credentials of the state doesn't certify the truth is anymore real, except that they can get a teaching gig. Texas, New Mexico, California doesn't make the land's geography any more real except that we understand how the concept of boundaries of places called Texas, New Mexico and California do exist.
"Meaning, homosexuals CHOOSE to self-annihilate as the example of MODIFICATION."
TD.
I didn't catch that.
Run it past me again.
"Note: Dudes REFUSE to admit that their belief in something is faith-based. Believing their information source is exclusively sincere and truthful. Subconsciously excepting a measure of infallibility with a small insignificant margin of error. Otherwise they would go out and study every field available to arrive at a self investigated conclusion. They are not going to do that because it is unreasonable. Yet they find it reasonable to trust particular sources. Which is fine, but they are in denial that this is apart of obtaining information." Gee Chee
Pro Fucking Found
DV,
Darwinian theory asserts random mutations NATURALLY-selected. This means the "environment" is the main mechanism of action. Meaning, evolution is determined BY A MECHANISM that is outside the sentient organism.
The modern synthesis recognizes the obvious weakness in Darwinian theory and so asserts modern evolutionary theory. MET's ASSERTION IS descent (Determinant aspect of Darwinian theory) with MODIFICATION (intelligently directed evolution).
The MET asserts a descent from an original lifeform WHERE WE ALL BEGAN and INTELLIGENCE as the main mechanism of evolution (modification).
Meaning, WE INTELLIGENT CATS evolve ourselves or are being evolved by some INTELLIGENCE.
If a homosexual, by definition, rejects reproduction and survival as a self-annihilator is bound to do then he rejects Darwinian theory (environment made me homosexual) and seems to accept MET. The homosexual is then forced to believe his homosexuality IS INTELLIGENTLY-DERVIVED. But how many WILL actually make that claim?
Like you said, homosexuality is a behavior that people engage in IN A FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO USURP God's order of things.
"Note: Dudes REFUSE to admit that their belief in something is faith-based. Believing their information source is exclusively sincere and truthful.
Not only is this statement not profound, it's false and ignorant on the face of it.
DMG and I adhere to a scientific world view. What is science?
Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.[1] As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the scientific method is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, experiment, measurement, mathematics, and replication — to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new discoveries is called scientific research, and the people who carry out this research are called scientists.
to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers.
to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers.
to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers.
Darwinian theory asserts random mutations NATURALLY-selected. This means the "environment" is the main mechanism of action. Meaning, evolution is determined BY A MECHANISM that is outside the sentient organism.
"Darwinian Theory" as set forth in Origin of the Species asserts no such thing about "mutations" or "environmental natural selection"
Complete fabrication.
Epic Fail.
Only people without ANY concept of a Creator/of an Intelligent Being can believe that animals are basically humans waiting to evolve, sharing the quality of desire i.e. sexual perversion overriding their instinct to survive. Animals of opposite species don't show a want to mate with say a species it usually takes as prey.
This logical and factual catastrophe has to be unpacked in stages;
1. Only people without ANY concept of a Creator/of an Intelligent Being can believe that animals are basically humans waiting to evolve.
The former assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with the latter.
In direct observation of the natural environment, one can observe non-human intelligence as among social insects and seek to explain it via the mechanism of stigmergy.
One can discern the profound differences between the farming and engineering leaf cutter ant which establishes colonies orders of magnitude larger and more prolific than any other identified ant species - and which also engages in active symbiosis with a fungal and bacterial symbionts.
Here is an organism which has clearly evolved capabilities far beyond any others of its species but through processes of symbiosis closely analogous in many regards to what humans do. No one is confusing the ant with the human, either individually, or, in the aggregate.
2. sharing the quality of desire i.e. sexual perversion overriding their instinct to survive. Animals of opposite species don't show a want to mate with say a species it usually takes as prey.
Animals do and do suprisingly often engage in sexual activity across species, (and no, I'm not talking simply about mules, ligers, or tigons) and sometimes this cross-species activity yields viable offspring.
However, the real underlying culprit for genetic novelty is molecular homology arising from and as a result of close and mutually beneficial symbiosis.
It's why you have an appendix organized in conjunction with the gut bacteria on which you depend, or even more extravagantly, why a cow has four fermentation chambers or rumen - dedicated to the task of fermenting and digesting cellulose that would kill just about any other mammal.
See, the problem underlying both of catastrophic assertions is the tendency by an undisciplined thinker to anthropomorphize and not be able to detect the logical and factual errors resulting therefrom. Don't feel badly, none of your confederates who lapped it up like it was manna from wherever detected this obvious defect either....,
The modern synthesis recognizes the obvious weakness in Darwinian theory and so asserts modern evolutionary theory. MET's ASSERTION IS descent (Determinant aspect of Darwinian theory) with MODIFICATION (intelligently directed evolution).
The MET asserts a descent from an original lifeform WHERE WE ALL BEGAN and INTELLIGENCE as the main mechanism of evolution (modification).
Meaning, WE INTELLIGENT CATS evolve ourselves or are being evolved by some INTELLIGENCE.
The above is complete gibberish.
Serial endosymbiosis is the actual current synthesis.
The most important scientific thinker of the 20th century. (she breaks it down at 5:20 in the video)
Most important 20th century treatise geared for a popular readership.
Everything else is primitive conversation.
Craig,
You can bog us down in the details, but you can't hide the FUNDAMENTAL ASSERTIONS of Darwinian Theory and MET. And you can't deny how the latter theory PUTS INTELLIGENCE as the main mechanism of action in place of "environment."
As you implied, Darwinian theory IS LARGELY INOPERATIVE as far as sentient beings go.
All that is held on to is the notion of descent. This descent IS A PRODUCT OF random mutations NATURALLY-selected. We are evolved from an OOL (origin of life).
Funny thing is, NO SCIENTIST has EVER OBSERVED the "origin of species."
So again, IS EVOLUTION intelligently directed or not?
And what does "modification" actually mean?
And how do self-annihilating homosexuals JIVE with ANY THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
And Gee-chee essentially says what is self-evident. The atheist "scientist" is a fraud, a self-refutation. A radical autonomist MANIFESTED.
The atheist "scientist" is attemting to play God (BE an intelligent designer) while denying His existence.
Only by conceiving of WHAT GOD WOULD DO can the "scientist" even pretend that he is following a rational course of action. The disbelief in the existence of God means that particular "scientist" CAN GIVE NO REASONABLE EXPLANATION for what he does?
So what does he do to stay pure???
He acts as though "observation" of reality was the demarcation signifying his evolution from the rest of us God-believing nitwits.
What he doesn't see is that WE CNu...
Nothing.
Perhaps striving towards the singularity?
You can bog us down in the details, but you can't hide the FUNDAMENTAL ASSERTIONS of Darwinian Theory and MET. And you can't deny how the latter theory PUTS INTELLIGENCE as the main mechanism of action in place of "environment."
Why are you typing about a book you've never read and a theory you don't personally understand?
Why do you think so little of the intelligence of the audience to whom you address yourself?
Or is this sincerely the very best you're personally capable of?
As you implied, Darwinian theory IS LARGELY INOPERATIVE as far as sentient beings go.
I didn't imply any such thing.
I stated flatly that "Darwinian Theory" as set forth in On the Origin of the Species asserts no such thing about "mutations" or "environmental natural selection"
Why are you misrepresenting or failing to comprehend my explicit statement?
Is it because you've never read the book and have no idea what the fuck you're on about?
All that is held on to is the notion of descent. This descent IS A PRODUCT OF random mutations NATURALLY-selected. We are evolved from an OOL (origin of life).
More.pure.gibberish...,
Random mutations have never been shown to produce viable hereditary novelty. EVER.
THAT is a pure nonsense figment of an ignorant imagination taken.straight.out.of.a.comic.book...,
Funny thing is, NO SCIENTIST has EVER OBSERVED the "origin of species."
Wrong.
Speciation has been induced in fruit flies through temperature modulation. (UH OH, environment drives natural selection!!!!)
NOT.
Interestingly, the factor modified by temperature variation was a symbiotic bacterium implicated in various critical bodily functions of the fly.
The functions and reproductive viability were solely determined by the absence or presence of the bacterium, which itself was determined by the ambient temperature in which the flys dwelt.
a crucial endosymbiont was the source of heritable genetic novelty and drove the selective process.
THAT is the only documented example to date of human induced speciation.
So again, IS EVOLUTION intelligently directed or not?
Is stigmergy "intelligence" or not?
Are the leaf-cutter ants individually or collectively "intelligent"?
Do you use the terms "intelligence" and "sentience" interchangeably, and if so, why?
And what does "modification" actually mean?
I have no idea what anything you say means, because of your penchant for expressing yourself in unfamiliar, ambiguous, and unintelligible gibberish.
Try the scientific method for a change, and use some agreed upon terms whose precise definition you clearly understand and which others clearly and equivalently understand, as well.
genetic "novelty" or the inheritance of "novel" genetic and thus phenotypic traits is rooted in the transfer of genetic material from one symbiotic species to another, period.
And how do self-annihilating homosexuals JIVE with ANY THEORY OF EVOLUTION?
Try E.O. Wilson and Son's revised take on altruism and group fitness and see for yourself.
This comment;
And Gee-chee essentially says what is self-evident. The atheist "scientist" is a fraud, a self-refutation. A radical autonomist MANIFESTED.
and all of what followed it is utterly meaningless claptrap.
Science is a tool, a method for consistent investigation, communication, and documentation.
Try it for a change and elevate your otherwise retrograde and ineffectual game.
Craig,
I told you what Darwinian Theory CLAIMED.
I told you what Modern Evolutionary Theory CLAIMED.
The latter is a PROGRESSION of the former.
The progression shifts the Main Mechanism of Action from "environment" to "intelligence."
IT LEAVES INTACT the notion of descent.
Meaning, WE ARE BUT A "LIVING" ASPECT of an OOL that spans the globe.
Your fruit fly turned ORIGINAL SPECIE is evidence of OUR descent.
But NOW we know that "intelligence" manipulates the "environment" and HAS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Some call it MODIFICATION...
Modern Evolutionary Theory, descent with modification...
These are simple words that anyone can understand.
Craig,
If you don't think radical homosexuals are on the "evolutionary" forefront then you're either ignant as hell or hella complicit?
What is homosexuality other than the refutation of reproduction and survival (most understand this as Darwinian evolution)?
1. I told you what Darwinian Theory CLAIMED.
2. I told you what Modern Evolutionary Theory CLAIMED.
3. The latter is a PROGRESSION of the former.
1. is wrong.
2. is wrong.
So by default, whaddaya suppose that makes 3?
The progression shifts the Main Mechanism of Action from "environment" to "intelligence."
You're just making stuff up here.
1. IT LEAVES INTACT the notion of descent.
2. Meaning, WE ARE BUT A "LIVING" ASPECT of an OOL that spans the globe.
3. Your fruit fly turned ORIGINAL SPECIE is evidence of OUR descent.
1. No.
2. No.
3. No.
The fruit fly example is evidence of endosymbiotic speciation, period.
There is no other example of direct observation of speciation - though there is overwhelming molecular homologous evidence of the mechanism at work.
But NOW we know that "intelligence" manipulates the "environment" and HAS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.
Some call it MODIFICATION...
are the leaf-cutter ants and what they do "intelligent"?
Stop ducking the clarifying question.
If you don't think radical homosexuals are on the "evolutionary" forefront then you're either ignant as hell or hella complicit?
To be perfectly frank with you, I don't think about homosexuals at all.
What is homosexuality other than the refutation of reproduction and survival (most understand this as Darwinian evolution)?
Most are ignorant, many are bigoted - the combination is not useful and not a good look.
Read current E.O. Wilson and his sons on altruism and group selective fitness.
I'll help you out with a link or two if you actually want to learn something about the most comprehensive scientific explication of the relevant subject matters.
Craig,
If you believe in MET then YOU HAVE TO FIT homosexuals in the fold.
How do you include self-annihilators in the evolutionary fold?
You say their sisters have more kids.
Lol...
Thing is Craig, HOMOSEXUALS don't want to BE IN THE FOLD.
That's why they're homosexual.
@ CNu
CNu, stick to defending bukakke analogies. “Only,” CNu, as in “ONLY a nigga that watches ‘Desperate House Wives’ could believe in blah blah blah” or “ONLY someone who supports the Klan could believe in blah blah blah.”
Understand. It’s funny, I started to edit the wording because I wondered if someone would be so trivial as to make play on it.
Thank you Marty Stouffer for the lesson on the wonders of the leaf cutter ant. Now back to the subject. Is it, or is it not your position to point out, say, homosexual tendencies amongst “leaf cutter ants?” If not, then what’s your point?
Mules, ligers and tigons oh my! Negro you know better. “SPECIES IT USUALLY TAKES AS PREY” You saw that. You trying to be slick.
Have you seen a bear and a moose CNu?
A tiger and a mule mate CNu?
A horse wanting to get all up in a turtle?
As Fred G. Sanford says, “Gorilla ugly-mopotamus”
No.
But you see people engage in sex with species nowhere related to them like humping sheep and dogs. You and Fisher got any nice analogies for that? I’ll stick the “jazz analogies” as you attributed to me.
"DV,
Darwinian theory asserts random mutations NATURALLY-selected. This means the "environment" is the main mechanism of action."
OK. Get that.
"Meaning, evolution is determined BY A MECHANISM that is outside the sentient organism."
Um. Ok. Get that.
"The modern synthesis recognizes the obvious weakness in Darwinian theory and so asserts modern evolutionary theory. MET's ASSERTION IS descent (Determinant aspect of Darwinian theory) with MODIFICATION (intelligently directed evolution)."
What do you mean by "descent"?
"The MET asserts a descent from an original lifeform WHERE WE ALL BEGAN and INTELLIGENCE as the main mechanism of evolution (modification)."
Divine intelligence?
"Meaning, WE INTELLIGENT CATS evolve ourselves or are being evolved by some INTELLIGENCE."
OK. Which one though? Big difference.
"If a homosexual, by definition, rejects reproduction and survival as a self-annihilator is bound to do then he rejects Darwinian theory (environment made me homosexual) and seems to accept MET. The homosexual is then forced to believe his homosexuality IS INTELLIGENTLY-DERVIVED."
Um. OK.
"But how many WILL actually make that claim?
Like you said, homosexuality is a behavior that people engage in IN A FEEBLE ATTEMPT TO USURP God's order of things."
OK. OK. Yes.
I agree with that.
Secular fanaticism has rallied behind homosexuality because it DOES usurp God's order.
Good stuff T.
Actually ligers and tigons do exist.
The qsn about the ants having individual/collective intelligence is a pretty good qsn.
However what is meant by collective - collective as in the sum of their intelligence or collective as in their intelligence is as a group?
What can that tell us abt collective/individual human intelligence?
If you believe in MET then YOU HAVE TO FIT homosexuals in the fold.
If you believe in MET, then you're about 43 years behind the curve and need to start familiarizing yourself with serial endosymbiosis, epigenetics, stigmergy and microbiomes.
Actually ligers and tigons do exist.
Of course they do, and as a matter of fact, there are vastly more radical interspecies intersections than that.
read Margulis..., and think about the widespread phenomenon of larva formation among certain species of organisms and what this extreme form of embryonic recapitulation really represents.
However what is meant by collective - collective as in the sum of their intelligence or collective as in their intelligence is as a group?
or collective as inclusive of the specialized bacteria essential to their digestive processes, or, collective as inclusive of the specific fungal symbiont that is the crux of their agriculture, or collective as in all of the above?
lol..,
the human microbiome is exponentially more complex than the dazzling summary layout I've noted to your attention for leaf cutter ants - who genuinely comprise the apex organism in most rain forests - and are as far removed from other ants in the scope of their activities as these humans are removed from monkeys.
I realize that's a lot to think about K-Dub, but I trust your kungfu hella skrong, and unlike some these faggoty-azzed muhphuggahs, you not scurred. (^;
In regards to questions are they born that way?
To Drs and PhD
For every
Edward O. Wilson, PhD-
yes!
"Homosexuality is normal in a biological sense, that it is a distinctive beneficial behavior that evolved as an important element in human social organization. Homosexuals may be the genetic carriers of some of mankind's rare altruistic impulses."
On Human Nature, 1978 -Techno's Boy.
There is a
Timothy J. Dailey, PhD,
Hell No!
Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Marriage and Family Studies of the Family Research Council, was quoted as having said the following in a June 26, 2006 article titled "Prenatal Effect Hinted for Some Gay Men," published by the AP Science Writer:
"We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality. We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development. If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time."
A. Dean Byrd, PhD,
Hell No!
Clinical Professor of Medicine at the University of Utah School of Medicine, wrote the following statement in his May 27, 2001 article titled "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science," available on the The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) website Narth.com:
"There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined."
Neil E. Whitehead, PhD,
Hell No!
scientific research consultant, wrote the following information in his book My Genes Made Me Do It!, published in 1999:
"The stages of psycho-social development toward adult heterosexuality are clearly demarcated, known and understood by developmental psychologists, and are so obviously learned that heterosexuality is clearly not genetically mandated. Surveys of adult homosexuals show conspicuous deficits in several of these developmental stages - showing that homosexuality is cultural and environmental rather than genetic."
and a also
Richard C. Friedman, MD,
Hell No!
Clinical Professor of Psychiatry in the Weill Medical College at Cornell University, wrote the following statement in his book Sexual Orientation and Pschoanalysis, published in 2002:
"At clinical conferences one often hears discussants commenting that 'homosexuality is genetic' and, therefore, that homosexual orientation is fixed and unmodifiable. Neither assertion is true. These ideas were sometimes put forth in the 1980s in a debate that has long since ended...
Homosexual orientation results from interaction of many factors, including genetic influences in varying degrees across individuals... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology. "
Sexual orientation of any type - homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual - is best conceptualized as part of the psychology of men or the psychology of women... "
KW-They are male cats humping female cats. Not questioning that. I don't think a liger is some unicorn. This blog does not carry the first breaking news of a liger. CNu knows that's not the conversation. This is the direction he intended, but he ain't slick.
@CNu
Your definition of science. Why does your understanding of things begin with Latin as if it is some sacred enlightened language?
“Science, understood in the restricted sense of an organized, orderly and objective knowledge of the natural order, is not the product of the modern mind alone. Such forms of knowledge has also been extensively cultivated in pre-modern civilizations such as the Chinese, Indian, and Islamic civilizations. These pre-modern sciences, however, differ from modern science with respect to goals, methodology, sources of inspiration, and their philosophical assumptions concerning man, knowledge, and the reality of the natural world. In pre-modern civilizations, science was never divorced from spiritual knowledge. On the contrary, one finds an organic unity of science and spiritual knowledge.”
Karl Pooper defines science as falsifiability. If it isn't replicable then the theory is not sound.
In regards to the Animal Kingdom:
Charles Socarides, MD, Founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), stated in a 1995 letter to the New York Review of Books:
"Firstly, the term homosexuality should be limited to the human species, for in animals the investigator can ascertain only motor behavior. As soon as he interprets the animal's motivation he is applying human psychodynamics -- a risky, if not foolhardy scientific approach.
Secondly, assumptions as to the origin of human homosexuality cannot be based on the study of genes, hypothalamus, anterior commissure, or the lower brain structures, or species such as the drosophila fly, or even lower primates; because in man the enormous evolutionary development of the cerebral cortex has made motivation -- both conscious and unconscious -- of overwhelming central significance in sexual patterning and sexual-object choice. Below the level of chimpanzee, sexual arousal patterns are completely automatic and reflexive."
The sources CNu trusts cannot explain why a horse is not sexually attracted to a turtle, but they will say a male horse is sexually attracted to a male horse.
They are defining. Their definition is trusted. People have agendas. CNu is implying they are fair, objective, unbiased sources. He doesn't know, he isn't a scientists, but reads their works and trusts their conclusions. Naturally. It agrees with what he WANTS to see.
The same is said for anyone else, only difference is he's in denial.
Even the techno's boy Sigmund Freud did not believe homosexuals were born that way- those africans suffer from arrested development.
1905/1909 -- "In 1905’s Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, he put forward sexual theories, including his thoughts on the origins and meanings of homosexuality.
Freud believed that homosexuality could be the natural outcome of normal development in some people.
He noted that homosexuality could occur in individuals who had no other signs of deviation and no impairment in their functioning. However, he did not view homosexuality, or inversion as he called it, as a sign of illness, by which he meant a symptom arising from psychic conflict. Instead, he saw homosexuality as the unconflicted expression of an innate instinct.
He believed life experiences, particularly traumatic ones (environmental factors), could have an impact on the development and expression of one’s innate instincts (biological factors). Under normal and non-traumatic circumstances, the component instincts that determine the sex of one’s final object choice should be consistent with one’s anatomical sex.
That is to say an anatomic male should ideally express the masculine component instinct and obtain sexual satisfaction from women.
Freud saw adult homosexuality as a developmental arrest of childhood instincts which prevent the development of a more mature heterosexuality, referred to as Freud's Theory of Immaturity."
bears repeating;
I don't think about homosexuals at all.
But I find attempts to rationalize anti-homosexual bias via pseudo-scientific argumentation as offensive and ridiculous as I have found pseudo-scientific argumentation to rationalize racism.
It really is as simple as that.
Irving Bieber, MD
No Excuses!
Where is your Daddy?
"Irving Bieber studied 106 male homosexual patients who were being treated by him or other psychiatrists and found that early cross-gender behavior, including patterns that are thought of as feminine, was the most common element in their background. He thus realized that the phenomenon that became homosexuality among adults actually started very early, long before the hormonal surge at puberty focused the attention of the young man on sex. However, Bieber was also the source of another idea that seems to be an oversimplification or an error in interpretation: he attributed this early behavior to parental patterns that emphasized a strong binding relationship with mothers and weak or absent fathers."
these faggoty-azzed muhphuggahs-CNu
That is why it's totally normal, nothing out of the ordinary for Fisher to reference bukakke analogies. No one is fascinated by that, grown/front porch sitting/old school/6'1 245lbs evolved ape-man.
lol...,
The sources CNu trusts cannot explain why a horse is not sexually attracted to a turtle, but they will say a male horse is sexually attracted to a male horse.
They are defining. Their definition is trusted. People have agendas. CNu is implying they are fair, objective, unbiased sources. He doesn't know, he isn't a scientists, but reads their works and trusts their conclusions. Naturally. It agrees with what he WANTS to see.
GeeChee is either;
1. Too stupid to follow the discussion.
2. illiterate
3. a liar.
Where on this thread have I made reference to an animal model to account for homosexuality?
hmmmm?
Thordaddy enjoined a rousing discussion of evolutionary theory - I hipped him to the current state of the same.
Try to keep up.
I guess "Plantation" training and science is OK when it fits your agenda. I wonder if Waxy's zeal for these papers would hold up if he actually read the articles in their entirety.
puh-leeze magne.
Did you notice however, that when DeeVee got gut checked up top, GeeChee appears totally out of the blue on this thread slinging insults and attempting to distract/divert/ diminish an otherwise perfectly civil discussion.
Fascinating antics all around....,
My man Ed Dunn has written a tool for interrogating the comment logs of other people's blogs.
I think I'ma hit him up back channel and see if he'll let me borrow that jawn for a minute - run it against this raggedy muhphuggah - and see exactly what there is to see about who comprises this motley cast of pseudoanonymous misfits and morons.
For TD, - you are on point.
Many evolutionary biologists have wrestled with the widespread presence of homosexuality in human populations. Essentially, their quandry is not that homosexuality is present in large numbers (2-3% at most in any population), but that it is found in virtually all cultures and societies at least to some degree.
Evolutionarily, this implies that there is some evolutionary benefit and some genetic component, which usually means it contributes to survival and reproductive success in some way.
But how can that be when homosexuals reproduce at a far lesser rate than heterosexuals?
Even the original sociobiologist, E. O. Wilson, stated the problem this way: "The homosexual state itself results in inferior genetic fitness, because of course homosexual men marry much less frequently and have far fewer children than their unambiguously heterosexual counterparts." (Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, Belknap/Harvard, 1975, p. 555.)
Evolutionary explanations require an immediate genetic benefit for the individual expressing the trait or behavior.
Most evolutionary biologists have tried to deal with the problem by one of two suggestions.
First, the genes involving homosexuality (if there are indeed any at all, but so far there is no evidence for any) could be advantageous somehow in the heterozygous state (individuals who have one copy of a gene leading to homosexuality but not both and therefore not truly expressing the trait), and therefore the gene or genes are kept in the population that way even though when both copies are expressed in the same individual (homozygosity) reproduction is prevented.
Second, some have suggested that homosexuals may gain a genetic fitness by being primarily helpers in raising offspring of their brothers and sisters, therefore preserving their own genes through aiding the survival of their nieces and nephews who carry about 1/8 of their own genes (technically referred to as kin selection).
Aiding the survival of eight or more such nieces and nephews preserves a full complement of your genes into the next generation which is how natural selection supposedly works.
Both of these options may at first sound reasonable but, neither of these options has a shred of evidence in support of it.
self-annihilators to a tee.
Evolutionary explanations require an immediate genetic benefit for the individual expressing the trait or behavior.
Wrong.
Only if you believe in Dawkins selfish gene anthropomorphization of DNA.
Citing E.O. Wilson from 35 years ago is more than a little off target as he has reformulated his life's work on group selection in just the past few years.
But then, if you were actually familiar with any of this literature, you would've already known that fact...,
Aiding the survival of eight or more such nieces and nephews preserves a full complement of your genes into the next generation which is how natural selection supposedly works.
more selfish-gene magical thinking...,
GeeChee appears totally out of the blue on this thread slinging insults-CNu
WHAT! Is this coming from you! NOW, all of a sudden you reporting live from Snitch Central?
CNu, misread that. Simple. Don't like it, scroll down past that sh!t. Simple.
I know how much DMG can't stand to see Wax post something he disagrees with. Teased DMG. DMG comes back with a funny. Gee-Chee acknowledges the funny and moves on.
CNu, you forget the "perfectly civil discussion" was amongst cats that aren't on some ol'Son of Sam/stalk'n/I'm upstairs in your home/come to your city & fight you stupid sh!t. THAT'S why it was PERFECTLY CIVIL.
Thordaddy enjoined a rousing discussion of evolutionary theory - I hipped him to the current state of the same.-CNu
Anyway, no I'm not following the conversation you are having with Thordaddy. I'm following the point you are trying to make in your disagreement with WHAT I POSTED.
If you are interested in one conversation, keep it one. CNu, you so bitter, in your withered heart you were lay'n low in the brush like Brer Fox just to say something crazy to Gee-Chee.
CNu, you forget the "perfectly civil discussion" was amongst cats that aren't on some ol'Son of Sam/stalk'n/I'm upstairs in your home/come to your city & fight you stupid sh!t. THAT'S why it was PERFECTLY CIVIL.
wow!
geechee - where on this thread did I make reference to an animal model to account for homosexuality?
answer the question truthfully.
you so bitter, in your withered heart you were lay'n low in the brush like Brer Fox just to say something crazy to Gee-Chee.
nah, you just don't have anything of value to offer.
Craig,
All that fancy talk AND NOT A SINGLE one here knows what YOU CLAIM TO BE THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSERTION of the newest version of evolutionary theory?
In fact, foolz like you ALWAYS TELL US we don't really understand evolution at all. They never tell us that scientists CREATE new words for phenomena "observed" at the microlevel AND THAT YOU CAN'T TRANSLATE THAT into layman's terms.
There is only HOW and WHY in the evolutionary scheme of things.
HOW IS EITHER INTELLIGENTLY DIRECTED OR NOT.
Is evolution "intelligently" directed?
If so then ALL "acts" are able to be manipulated.
In fact, that is exactly what scientists are doing...
MAKING MICROORGANISMS ACT...
But that's no evidence of "evolution."
Darwin ALREADY KNEW THERE WHERE DIFFERENT SPECIES...
So the only point of the FRUIT FLY was to CLAIM DESCENT.
Descent is Darwin's lasting contribution to whatever evolutionary theory reigns supreme.
BUT IT WAS IMPORTANT because is REDUCED EVOLUTION'S ORIGINS TO A SINGLE "source..."
Meaning, it reduced evolution to a particular environment and a particular mechanism of action.
So what is EVOLUTIONARY THEORY'S main mechanism of action?
All that fancy talk AND NOT A SINGLE one here knows what YOU CLAIM TO BE THE FUNDAMENTAL ASSERTION of the newest version of evolutionary theory?
lol,
and that's MY problem because....?
I already provided you that free online tutorial; waaaaaaaay upthread.
So what is EVOLUTIONARY THEORY'S main mechanism of action?
Serial endosymbiosis is the actual current synthesis.
The most important scientific thinker of the 20th century. (she breaks it down at 5:20 in the video)
Most important 20th century treatise geared for a popular readership.
Everything else is primitive conversation.
Dang Craig,
Like I said, WE ARE ALL "LIVING" ASPECTS of a OOL.
The proof is the fundamental material aspect present in all "living things." Do you know what that is, Craig? Remember Craig, although we think of evolution as a process over time ITS MAIN MECHANISM OF ACTION is a MATERIAL STRUCTURE.
Meaning, if there were an OOL (origin of life as in singular material structure enveloped by an "environment") THEN THAT MATERIAL STRUCTURE should be present IN ALL THE BIOTA. Which in turns suggest WE are mere "appendages" to a "living mass."
Endosymbiosis (organisms living in physical conjuction evolving to novel organisms) has the stink of androgynous autonomy to it.
It has the stink of Man/Woman living in conjunction to form new species of androgynous autonomist/homosexual/devout dyke.
But is changes NOTHING as far as the game goes.
"Intelligent "cats ARE SELLING "endosymbiosis" to androgynous autonomists and radical autonomists are buying it up. But so are the ignorant masses. They don't see that they are being put in an evolutionary box while others are manipulating evolution.
This explains your indifference to homosexuality. You no more want to be confined by "endosymbiosis" than you want to be restrained by a Knowable God.
In fact, HOMOSEXUALS are a great example of endosymbiosis.
Come on, quit playing...
Are you seeking the singularity?
Imagine two heterosexuals living in very intimate proximity evolving to create the anti-heterosexual. Let's call this phenomenon "anti-endosymbiosis."
The question becomes HOW DOES endosymbiosis CREATE anti-endosymbiosis?
How does UNION create HOMO?
How does relationship CREATE radical autonomist?
The biological mandate is dead.
Endosymbiosis???
Yeah, IF YOU WANT TO...
lol,
that last comment was just feces flung into the monkey house, right Josh? I have no doubt it will elicit some or another energetic but equally unintelligible response.
I'm gonna skip back to and respond to the comment preceding that one in which you show all your cards, umm-kay?
Like I said, WE ARE ALL "LIVING" ASPECTS of a OOL.
It's funny how you suppose that your, errr..., uh, "mentations" are intelligible to others
The proof is the fundamental material aspect present in all "living things." Do you know what that is, Craig? Remember Craig, although we think of evolution as a process over time ITS MAIN MECHANISM OF ACTION is a MATERIAL STRUCTURE.
Meaning, if there were an OOL (origin of life as in singular material structure enveloped by an "environment") THEN THAT MATERIAL STRUCTURE should be present IN ALL THE BIOTA. Which in turns suggest WE are mere "appendages" to a "living mass."
Did you say something here?
Cause if so, I missed it.
The main mechanism by which heritable genetic novelty arises is serial endosymbiosis.
That's a simple, provable, overwhelmingly evidenced fact.
You are aware that bacteria have no species? And you understand the implications of that statement?
You understand that it's an indisputable and overwhelmingly evidenced fact that bacteria swap genetic material like Androids swap apps?
You understand that here-to-date 99.99% of so-called "genetic engineering" is simply transgenic DNA transfer, i.e., pulling snippets out of sea squirts and putting them in bunny rabbits?
But that that all changed last week?
Now that Church and Venter have actually kicked that up to a whole new level by demonstrating viability and heritability of engineered and synthesized DNA. So now the whole and entire living machinery is laid open to the intrepid explorers and engineers of reality mechanics.
Endosymbiosis (organisms living in physical conjuction evolving to novel organisms) has the stink of androgynous autonomy to it.
It has the stink of Man/Woman living in conjunction to form new species of androgynous autonomist/homosexual/devout dyke.
you.come.straight.out.of.a.comic.book.man.....,
But is changes NOTHING as far as the game goes.
rotflmbao....,
They don't see that they are being put in an evolutionary box while others are manipulating evolution.
You're not as stupid as waste so much time pretending to be...,
Come on, quit playing...
But Josh, as you plainly and fearfully see,
the game.is.now.over....,
Comes now a moment where David Mills absence is plainly and genuinely felt.
His take on this field was primitive and missed the mark by a country mile - because like you, his politics and values were deeply flawed and he was only able to see what he wanted to see (rather than what is actually there) - but he sure would have been awestruck by what has been announced in the public sphere this past week.
Like a kid in a candy store...,
and let me repeat it one more time so that there's no possibility of ridiculous, diversionary confusion:
To be perfectly frank with you, I don't think about homosexuals at all.
I do, however, think quite a lot about the ignorant, bigoted atavisms who are comfortable with ostracizing, punishing, or otherwise immorally oppressing homosexual people.
Craig,
Peep that video again...
Does Margulis have devout dyke written all over her or not?
I bet her "one life" theory is very receptive to abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality.
BUT AGAIN...
What is the MATERIAL STRUCTURE that lay at the heart of "endosymbiosis?"
Come on Craig... Give us something?
A MECHANISM OF ACTION must be MATERIAL STRUCTURE.
What is it?
Craig,
When does unique human life begin?
(a) before conception
(b) after conception
(c) AT conception
Guess how many of these "one life" "scientists" NEVER PICK (c)?
Even though you neither read or comprehended the material Josh, you've confirmed that what little you've seen is sufficiently threatening to your version of reality to demand refuting.
You've betrayed your uncertainty - and now you're desperate to change the subject...,
sheer, mindless, gutless, what's that smell?
that's the smell of victory...,
accept no substitutes.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before someone brought up that old anti-abortion chestnut.
What is with folks needing to be all up in someones bedroom business?
These dudes happen to LIKE OTHER DUDES. Why is this a problem? Do people have the same disdain from Nuns who decide NOT to have children? Is their life less worth living? Should women with ovarian disease or who have lost use of their uterus be tossed in prison for not being able to breed?
Most of the worlds problems would probably be fixed if people minded their own fucking business...especially about what two consenting adults are doing behind closed doors, or what they do with their reproductive potential.
Come on Craig... Keep it real.
UNCERTAINTY is the physicist's ASSERTED STATE OF EXISTENCE.
Meaning, whatever evolutionary paradigm that you are currently invested in IS AT ROOT UNCERTAIN as IT MUST reside within the physical laws as put forth by those other scientists, the physicists.
THIS IS WHY YOU CAN GIVE US NOTHING...
As it pertains to the MATERIAL STRUCTURE underlying "endosymbiosis."
See, the "one life" theory IMPOSES ITS OWN CONSTRAINTS UPON ITSELF.
There is a reason we CAN'T CREATE new life FROM SCRATCH. The combination of PERFECT STRUCTURE AND PERFECT ENVIRONMENT will in all probability NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. First, because we have not the intelligence to decide what that PARTICULAR NOW "looked" like. And secondly, we have not the power to completely configure the NOW.
This is quantum truth and evolution must abide by it.
DMG,
If you don't see the connection between radical homosexuality and the "endosymbiosis" evolutionary theory then you aren't looking hard enough.
Dood...
A REAL HOMOSEXUAL IS A REFUTATION OF THE EVOLUTIONARY PREMISE.
Self-annihilators ARE A DIRECT REFUTATION of "evolution."
Self-annihilation is what makes "evolution" falsifiable.
REAL HOMOSEXUALS (not those fomos with indiscriminate sexual tastes) are SELF-ANNIHILATORS.
Is it not odd that many of these self-annihilators ARE THE LOUDEST ADVOCATES of "evolution" via "endosymbiosis?"
Get a clue, jack.
How and why?
How and why?
How and why?
How are "we" evolving?
WHAT IS THE MATERIAL STRUCTURE THAT ANIMATES "US?"
Why...
Why are "scientists" trying to find out what IT is?
(a) to modify IT
(b) to manipulate IT
(c) Cuz they justa buncha sci-fi nerds
So many igits have homosexuality rooted in attraction rather than what it is really motivated by and that of course is aversion.
Homosexuality IS AVERSION TO HETEROSEXUALITY and not attraction to homosexuality.
To have it the other way is to say homosexuality is nothing but a preference.
Why prefer such a deadly lifestyle when you aren't really averse to heterosexuality?
First there is aversion and then embrace of self-annihilation via radical autonomy.
A broken mind, really is a terrible thing.
Hysterics about where someone sticks his penis or tongue has to be the ultimate diversionary tactic. I do believe Chappelle's Black Bush skit was onto something.
DMG,
Do you disagree that self-annihilators FALSIFY "evolution?"
Do you disagree with the reality of self-annihilators?
Are REAL HOMOSEXUALS self-annihilators or not?
Does homosexuality NOT FALSIFY "evolution?"
If not, why not?
Wax posted:
Homosexual orientation results from interaction of many factors, including genetic influences in varying degrees across individuals... The assertion that homosexuality is genetic is so reductionistic that it must be dismissed out of hand as a general principle of psychology. "
Which I think asserts that saying homosexuality is SOLELY genetic is asinine. Because righte before he calls it reductionistic, he says that it affects individuals to varying degrees.
And, I didn't know all the words Cnu used, but the gist of his posts can be followed if you know what his theories are on what controls evolution and life. If I understand him, he's rolling with the idea that bacteria drive evolution by using humans and others as hosts and "improving" them to make them better hosts. I still don't know what he feels about life creation though.
On the homosexuality and evolution tip, wouldn't it be quite possible for homosexuality to be a naturally occuring mutation that affects an individuals ability to reproduce? Just like mutations that cause actual sterility, homosexuality can cause a form of sterility depending on the severity of the genetic mutation.
I don't know, but that's how I've always thought about it.
If I understand him, he's rolling with the idea that bacteria drive evolution by using humans and others as hosts and "improving" them to make them better hosts.
Nah Big Man.
I'm rolling with the overwhelming evidence that all genetic novelty arose in the freewheeling and omnisexual bacterial world over the course of billions of years. (bacteria don't have species, don't have genders, and aren't really sexual reproducers in the limited and limiting gendered sexual reproductive way that is common to but by no means exclusive among many animals and plants)
Bacteria swap DNA freely with one another - mashing up new living constructions and capabilities according to their associations.
Genetic novelty has never been shown to be the result of "mutations". Mutations break DNA and cause life ending malfunctions.
Genetic novelty and complex multicellular organization (itself a functional and structural expression of genetic novelty) have arisen from the recombination of pre-existing bacterial novelty.
I still don't know what he feels about life creation though.
Life and nonlife are connected in very fundamental ways. The organization of life is material and energetic.
Life exists in the very real thermodynamic difference between 5800 Kelvin of incoming solar radiation and 2.7 Kelvin of outer space. It is this gradient upon which life's complexity feeds. This thermodynamic idea connects life to nonlife.
Life is one of a class of systems that organize in response to a gradient.
Homosexual” is Not a Noun
Winning the Battle of Words
" Congress has been subjected to a relentless public relations assault from homosexual advocacy groups claiming that the marriage amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples. Implicit in these claims is the presumption that the term “homosexuals” refers to an identifiable class of people—a claim that even its staunchest supporters know is a myth.
Lost in the debate is the fact that in its original context, homosexual—as well as its nearly synonymous counterpart, gay—was most often used as an adjective and referred to erotic desires for the same sex. In the past, it was common to refer to someone who practiced homosexual activity as a sodomite, and the act of homosexuality—i.e., unnatural carnal copulation—as sodomy.
Actually, both homosexual and heterosexual are relatively new terms, having found their way into the lexicon in the 1930s. The associated term gay, did not come into common usage until the mid-1970s.
The use of those words as nouns has come into relatively common usage in recent years, in large part due to homosexual practitioners and their apologists who know that any debate centered on the homosexual lifestyle would be a lost cause. For obvious reasons, therefore, it was politically necessary to perpetrate the myth that homosexuality is an inborn state of being and a civil rights issue rather than an atypical sexual behavior, like pederasty—sexual activity between a man and a boy.
Myth Becomes Reality
The public relations machine of the Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, and Transgender movement (GLBT) achieved an important victory last year when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that unnatural carnal copulation, i.e. sodomy, was a constitutionally guaranteed right and its practitioners are to be regarded as a protected minority group.
In addition, there have been a plethora of statements by GLBT groups and their sympathizers that have perpetrated the false impression that science has proven that homosexual practitioners are born into the lifestyle and cannot change their sexual preferences. As “proof,” several scientific studies have been cited: studies of the hypothalamus; identification of a “gay” gene; hormone research; studies of identical twins; and studies in brain chemistry.
The common thread that ties these studies together is that not one produced any result that established a biological link to sexual orientation. What has been shown is that the most prevalent common denominators in homosexual orientation are dysfunctional relationships with the same-sex parent and early childhood sexual abuse. Three facts about homosexuality are indisputable:
• There is no scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that homosexuality is inborn or that it is unchangeable.
• A person can be seduced into the homosexual lifestyle.
• A person can leave the homosexual lifestyle and live a fully productive and fulfilling heterosexual life, albeit not without difficulty, as with any life-altering addiction.
Homosexuals Can Only be Identified by Behavior
In the legal pursuit of GLBT rights, it is well known that no one can prove that he/she is a so-called homosexual.
The Maryland Anti-discrimination law of 2001, for example, provides no procedure to establish how an individual can be identified as male or female homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual. In fact, the law essentially recognized the futility of attempting to verify an individual’s sexual orientation when it added the following waiver:
An employer shall be immune from liability, under this article or under the common law, arising out of the employer's reasonable acts to verify the sexual orientation of any employee or applicant taken by the employer in response to a charge filed against the employer on the basis of sexual orientation.
The California Domestic Partners Law cites a domestic partnership as a declaration of shared responsibility between two persons of the same sex—the declaration is not made between two homosexuals since it is not possible to rationally classify someone by using such a designation.
In fact, the California law makes no mention of either homosexuals or sexual orientation in the legislation.
The recently passed Senate hate crimes bill, S.966, provides additional penalties for “offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability.” The crafters of the bill, recognizing that sexual orientation is an indeterminate term, added the word perceived as a descriptor to the protected categories. Again, the word homosexual is nowhere found in the legislation.
^^^ The "one life" theory...
At root is the "fundamental material mechanism." A MATERIAL STRUCTURE THAT CAN'T BE IDENTIFIED VIA QUANTUM THEORY.
But inside are the "instructions..." uh umm... The "truth of the matter."
Whether it material or immaterial is irrelevant to the fact that the "unchangeable" structure of the bacteria, gene or meme (but still Multi-functional SUGGESTING PRIMACY of "instructions" within) render these entities simply vessels for "truths" seemingly doing what truths do... Seek To Be Known.
The current theory DOES NOT ENTERTAIN multiple OOL (origins of life) for the sheer improbability of it.
Again, more suggestion that beyond the canvas is the artist trying to paint the truth FOR US.
@DMG,
Any of this Valid?
MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO
Click here
Upthread--"Endosymbiosis (organisms living in physical conjuction evolving to novel organisms) has the stink of androgynous autonomy to it." --TD
"I'm rolling with the overwhelming evidence that all genetic novelty arose in the freewheeling and omnisexual bacterial world over the course of billions of years. (bacteria don't have species, don't have genders, and aren't really sexual reproducers in the limited and limiting gendered sexual reproductive way that is common to but by no means exclusive among many animals and plants)" -- CNu
"Congress has been subjected to a relentless public relations assault from homosexual advocacy groups claiming that the marriage amendment would discriminate against same-sex couples. Implicit in these claims is the presumption that the term “homosexuals” refers to an identifiable class of people—a claim that even its staunchest supporters know is a myth. -- Hotwax quoting another.
Omnisexual = Homosexual = Radical Autonomy...
Craig,
Let's assume that bacterial endosymbiosis gives rise to genetic novelty and such is called evolution?
What are you trying to tell us?
DESCENT... Ok... We come from bacteria.
MODIFICATION... Ok... "We" will continue to be evolved via our symbiotic relationship with bacteria.
Now what???
Oh... "One Life Theory..."
It makes abortion like clipping your fingernails. It makes euthanasia like exfoliating your crusty heels. And it makes self-annihilation A MORAL DUTY.
Homosexual = Omnisexual = Not Sexual = Radical Autonomist.
Craig,
You know at some point you will have to contend with "irreducible complexity."
Your unwillingness to do so exposes the fact that neither you nor any scientist HAS SHOWN US THE MATERIAL STRUCTURE that underlies "evolution."
Endosymbiosis just doesn't cut it.
So bacteria did what you say.
Show us the MATERIAL MECHANISM that let them do it.
You know it's futile though... That's what's crazy.
Structure and function... The uncertainty principle still applies, Craig.
Keep huntin' big dog... I dig my lady.
Craig,
Again, are you seeking the singularity?
Craig,
You ever looked at the evolutionary tree?
Lol...
See what it's missing...
This is Revenge of the Sci-Fi Nerds!!!
@ Wax,
I can't find this thread where you posted information about carbon data and the position of Earth being billions of years old.
It's interesting how concepts enter our language. A lot of people (at least in the West) do not find this alarming.
Sorry Wax,
We've ended our online relationship.
"It makes abortion like clipping your fingernails. It makes euthanasia like exfoliating your crusty heels. And it makes self-annihilation A MORAL DUTY.
This is Revenge of the Sci-Fi Nerds!!!"-TD
I saw on PBS this scientist claiming to have discovered the print from a fish that came on shore was found (you know the "fish" that we evolved from).
OK, this "scientist" has been trying to "unlock this mystery" for 20 something years. So, 20 something years he set the pace of having a job to "unlock the mystery" of the man-fish fish tale. I know they not making a teachers salary.
Create an alternative history or narrative. One that has no commonality with other world narratives. Create an elitist ideology like what the art world has been successful at creating. Most people who are not invested in contemporary art automatically reduce themselves to "not being cultured." They tend to place the artist above them as having a more insightful understanding of what they are seeing. In some ways this is true if you are familiar with the lexicons and the rendering of particular forms and compositions.
I can see the modern science community functioning in the same manner.
Gee Chee,
Are you complaining about a scientist having a job that consists of digging in the dirt to find fossils that might help explain our origins? I really hope you aren't saying his job is a waste of money...
I mean that coming from the mouth of an "artist" is kind of, well, "ballsy" don't you think?
@ DMG
That's the tone I'm talking about:
"digging in the dirt to find fossils that MIGHT HELP EXPLAIN OUR ORIGIN." That's what they are doing? Honest, hard days work, doing us a favor. Giving us an origin. Waiting for their stories as we sit around the proverbial camp fire, or rather the bunsen burner. Art is an ancient form. So is science. However contemporary art is not ancient, it's the diamond mine game. Didn't I draw a parallel to these institutions?
Modern scientists like the artist, create the narrative covered by a protective elitist shell the institution has provided. So you know how you get tired of the term "they." Well you always here people relate as evidence, "Scientists say blah blah blah, as if some divine inspired beings without hang-ups or prejudices."
In the art world these huge money making galleries start selecting artists while they are in grad school. That is not the same art that has created Egyptian, Greek, Islamic, Chinese architectural structures and manuscripts. That is NBA art. You are selected to reinforce the institution, not to submit ideas that are outside of their definitions and investments. Basquiat understood that and so as was told to me by this very prominent artist 10 years ago at dinner that knew Basquiat, that "Basquiat told me that I need to quit trying to be so invested in the art itself and make money."
I am saying these scientists may not be as dedicated to "our origins" as you imagine. That's when that trust factor kicks in DMG. They may be to some people what a preacher is to you. They can be 'bout that green just like Wayne or Gates.
Those scientists "in the dirt" grew up on the same Gene Roddenberry that artist George Lucas grew up on.
As TD said,
"Sci-Fi Nerds."
THORDADDY INFORMATION DEFICIT SYNDROME
How are "we" evolving?
You.are.not.
Why are "scientists" trying to find out what IT is?
Read some of what's been linked for your edification and find out.
THORDADDY ERROR #1
Homosexuality IS AVERSION TO HETEROSEXUALITY and not attraction to homosexuality.
rotflmbao...,
Here goes a snippet of compiled but utterly ridiculous code. (However, it does shed light on your obsessive fear of Blackness)
factual error and EPIC Fail...,
bears repeating;
A broken mind, really is a terrible thing.
THORDADDY ERROR #2
"At root is the "fundamental material mechanism."
yes, yes..,
A MATERIAL STRUCTURE THAT CAN'T BE IDENTIFIED VIA QUANTUM THEORY.
WTF!?!?!?!?!
Here goes a snippet of uncompiled and utterly meaningless rhetorical code that just throws your entire, stepwise logical process out of kilter.
THORDADDY Teachable Moment#1
Whether it material or immaterial is irrelevant to the fact that the "unchangeable" structure of the bacteria, gene or meme (but still Multi-functional SUGGESTING PRIMACY of "instructions" within) render these entities simply vessels for "truths" seemingly doing what truths do... Seek To Be Known.
um..., see - that's what all just changed this past week.
Steve Jones, professor of genetics at University College London, and a perennial voice of reason, offered me this verdict on the biologist's latest headlines.
"It's very easy to mock Venter," Jones suggests. "When he first appeared, people just kind of sneered at him. But they stopped sneering when they saw his brilliance in realising that the genome was not a problem of chemistry but a problem of computer power. I don't think anybody can deny that that was a monumental achievement and he has been doing fantastically interesting things subsequently with marine life.
THORDADDY ERROR #3
The current theory DOES NOT ENTERTAIN multiple OOL (origins of life) for the sheer improbability of it.
Again, more suggestion that beyond the canvas is the artist trying to paint the truth FOR US.
uh,
The current theory is scientific and adheres to the sage admonishment of Willem of Occam;
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Sorry Wax,
We've ended our online relationship.-DMG
Come on DMG. Online relationship. You not suppose to be collaborating with the enemy in the first place. Security threat.
"Locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy's assault by fire and close-combat." That's what I'm talking 'bout.
You suppose to be on some ol' online "you sank my battle ship." These colors (or rather "these pixels") don't run.
How does the Marine Hymn go again?
"From the chat rooms of Montezuma,
To the online courses of Tripoli;
We fight our country's battles
In the air, on land, DSL AT&T"
You a soldier/doctor. Your job online is to heal'em while you kill'em. SUCK IT IN SOLDIER. TAKE THAT DATASHPERE HILL.
THORDADDY Teachable Moments #2 and #3
What are you trying to tell us?
To study and understand the science, instead of ignorantly prostituting pseudo-scientific pronouncements
Now what???
Get a library card - go do a catalog search on Margulis and Sagan - and read everything you can in order to understand what she has produced.
As Stewart Brand said of Craig Venter; Stewart Brand, the ecological visionary and creator of the Whole Earth Catalog, is more persuaded. Brand has got to know Venter over the last couple of years through John Brockman's Edge initiative which brings together the world's pioneering minds. What differentiates Venter from many of his peers, Brand believes, is that he is not only a brilliant biologist, but also a brilliant organisational activist. "A lot of people can think big but Craig also has the ability to fund big: he doesn't wait for grants, he just gets on and finds a way to do these things. His great contribution will be to impress on people that we live in this vast biotic of microbes. What he has shown is that microbial ecology is now where everything is at."
He should have given some dap to Dr. Lynn Margulis for providing the shoulders on which Venter stood.
Were you aware that last week's events brought my entire raison d'blog full circle?
Here is my very first blog post from three years ago.
THORDADDY Teachable Moment #4
You ever looked at the evolutionary tree?
I have.
Lol...
See what it's missing...
I do.
It was supplanted by a more accurate and edifying short hand some years ago....,
Try and catch up because the science and the technology have left you decades behind...,
Summing up;
Gradients happen.
Gradient bridging processes happen.
Gradient bridging processes include structures we describe as fractal.
Gradient bridging processes include processes we describe as computational.
Willem of Occam was a bad muhphuggah.
Ignorant bigots will make up words and seize upon any fragmentary and distorted narrative they can find to rationalize their irrational and obsessive fear of the Other.
Here ends the lesson for today....,
Gee-Chee,
Yes, sometimes you have to cut people loose. I'm not interested in speaking to people who are more interested in the bogeyman than reason.
You do realize that your attempts to make light of the fact that I AM a Marine (yeah, it's capitalized, and we aren't "soldiers") is really only making you look silly. Again, my accomplishments need no defense. So if you have a point, you really should try to make it...that is unless you'd like to join Thordaddy and Wax? Makes no difference to me. You are kind of a joke to me anyway...sort of a guilty pleasure, like watching Oprah.
A mildly amusing waste of time. (What's funny is that as an "artist" I thought you'd be more creative...but I guess words really aren't your medium).
Status derived from Plantation sanction is both HIGHLY coveted and HIGHLY regarded at Denmarkvesey.
It's about the quest for Plantation validation and rewards for doing the best you can with what little you've been endowed.
The "hustle hard" ethos is by no means an intrinsically bad thing - but where it flies off the rails hereabouts is in its pervasive, explicit, and shabbily disguised/denied reliance on ignorance, bigotry, fear, and lifelong jealousy as primary motivations. Boiled down to its barenekkid elements - it is a study in not.too.bright. female adolescent insecurity.
You absolutely.could.not make this shit up.
It's.simply.priceless....,
Don't believe the hype:
Craig Venter vs. God?
Maybe much to do about nothing....
What did Venter really do?
Did he create life via the Media articles saying so?
Let's see CVenter,
Take the cell of a dead microorganism and a breakdown of another bacteria’s genome.
Then, have your DNA assembling machine string together about a million nucleobases with several markers that let you track the resulting strand.
Of course you won’t be able to just put together one strand, but instead, you’ll get segments about a thousand nucleobases long.
Once that’s done, use some key enzymes and yeast cells to assemble them into a complete chromosome.
With your artificial chromosome done, very carefully place it inside the dead cell you had laying around and give the whole thing a quick zap.
You should now have a reanimated bacterium with a working, artificially assembled chromosome from another species, regulating the cell’s functions as if it’s always been there, even accumulating a few mutations along the way.
Nice.........
Mr. Venter said that the experiment shows us that not only is life an intricate biochemical reaction as we’ve suspected before, but that we understand enough about it to splice a genome and a cell into a working organism.
Of course there’s more to uncover and as the technology ramps up to work with bigger and more complex genomes, we’ll be in a better position to keep learning.
Way to go Cve.
However for all of us freaking out and fawning all over CVe last 10 years of work;
check this:
It’s also important to note that this isn’t exactly the kind of playing God stuff which has been circulating in the media.
Venter didn’t create new life, or a previously unknown organism.
His team accurately replicated a genome and reanimated a dead cell using it, adding just a few watermarks to check the quality of their final assembly.
It’s not the kind of synthetic biology that DARPA is interested in developing. click here
At least not yet.
Artificial bacteria which might eventually be designed to do very specialized things, like say metabolizing raw petroleum from oil spills, couldn’t last long in the wild and would be very easily outcompeted by generalists with billions of years of evolution behind them.
In fact, synthetic life would actually be fragile and most probably kept that way. The current state of the art, million nucleobase synthetic genome is also simple as far as most living things on this planet are concerned, and while the media brings up terrorism and military lab monsters in the finest traditions of comic book science as reporters cover the story, the level of expertise involved in creating synthetic organisms makes assembling a functioning thermonuclear warhead look easy, even if we’re talking about future laboratory setups.
Maybe one day, we may be able to breed truly amazing things in top secret laboratories, but that day is still a long ways away and the technology required is still closer to what we see in science fiction movies than anything we’ll actually have anytime soon.
"I AM a Marine"-DMG
HA! YOU likened Marine war protocol with a blog thread debate. That is funny. Don't get sensitive. You reduced it's sacredness with a Barney Fife impersonation. Yeah, it's so scared but they go to black college campuses to recruit with a parked hummer, a dj and a basketball shooting contest. IT'S BULLSH!T. Contractors make more than dudes risking their lives. YES IT'S BULLSH!T. Really, MD, is that balanced? Cut me off for telling the truth. My cousin is getting ready to go to Afghanistan and has a better chance of survival by slang'n dope. How many Jay-Z, Fiddy, EZ-E success stories come out of being a "run up that hill nigger" Marine.
Popular culture doesn't care about a "Marine." Montel Williams had to emphasize that over Heath Ledger's death. Why? Because the same trend setters and cultural programmers don't GIVE A SH!T. Let it be what it is, and allow new generation of expendable poor folks soldiers march right into oblivion. You served with your life and I'm more known than you. That is the landscape you fighting for. That is how much you are honored. I have more internet pages on me than a fallen soldier. People value skinny's more than fatigues. Don't get mad at me, that's the way it is.
Then you talk about people in the pews singing spiritual hymns but you singing Marine Hymns. Shut up.
Plus, you around black folk. You can't be a "colored boy" playing Technicolor Captain Bob Wallace, and get mad because nobody's feeling it. My family has a military background. It was my Vietnam Uncle that told me he'll shoot me if I joined. "I AM A MARINE." I am ME before a head pat label.
No, I never needed a "coach" to say "run up the field nigger" or a "sarge" to say "run up the hill nigger" to make me feel significant. That's all intimate and sentimental to you, not me.
What's funny is that as an "artist" I thought you'd be more creative...but I guess words really aren't your medium-DMG
If I spoke in art jargon DMG, you wouldn't be able to follow, just like you still ain't following Anta Diop.
Plus, you around black folk. You can't be a "colored boy" playing Technicolor Captain Bob Wallace, and get mad because nobody's feeling it.
Plantation utterance of the millenium!!!
Accept no substitutes..,
You served with your life and I'm more known than you. That is the landscape you fighting for. That is how much you are honored. I have more internet pages on me than a fallen soldier. People value skinny's more than fatigues. Don't get mad at me, that's the way it is.
Insecure adolescent female popping ghetto shit to a Black man.
rotflmbao.
you.absolutely.could.not. make this shit up...,
^^^
As a matter of fact, who is a creative artist (visual I assume) that has some profound words that you are impressed with?
Luh deez brothaz like play cousins....,
@ CNu
First of all, bukakke analogies is adolescent, and gay. But you can't reason why.
Second, read the context. I'm not bragging. Yes it is adolescent you genius of geniuses. It's highlighting the values held sacred in the chest of those regarded as expendable "bacteria" but not by society. You got beef with A1 Steak sauce using a rapper to sell their product instead of a "brave soldier," not me.
Gee-Chee,
Great thing about art.
Anyone can do it.
Anyone can claim it.
Anyone can claim their art is fantastic.
Someone can literally defecate on canvas and it will still be called art by someone.
Now...what does that say about the term artist?
Again, Gee-Chee, you talk about things that don't concern you, and you've likely never experienced (and I really hope you don't). Perhaps you should approach a group of Marines the next time you happen upon them in say an airport, and let them know what you think, then maybe blog about it. I'd certainly be interested in the exchange.
You write quite a bit of shit for an "artist". Actually, your jumble of words, isn't exactly coherent writing, but I suppose that's "art", right?
So, what did I mean when I made the analogy? I meant that I would pursue a topic until you cried stop. That simple enough for you?
You really aren't that clever, and again I'll repeat that I expected more from someone who claims to be so creative. But again, what can I expect from someone who is self-proclaimed?
You know what? I'm an artist too. There, it was that simple. Oh, wait I've never had anything displayed in a gallery. As our host might state, "why do I need a gallery to validate my art?"
You are more known by whom? And why am I supposed to care who knows you? Does that make your art any better? Can art be measured?
So, what is a "creative artist". Are not all artists creative in some sense?
@gee chee
More boogie man stuff:)
The few the proud, the marines click here
Protect?
More like Destroy!
Special place in hell for these guys...
Don't even know they are getting played by the leaders they worship.
"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger
Gee-Chee,
Where you made your mistake is assuming that I actually give a fuck about popular culture, or what you believe is my motivation for stating that I am a Marine. I mean let's look at that phrase:
Popular Culture. That's just another phrase for lowest common denominator.
"I have more internet pages on me than a fallen soldier. People value skinny's more than fatigues."
Gay pornstars probably have more internet pages than you. So what?
You are one of those cats who really, really cares what people think. So, if someone thought your art was absolutely shit, and found no value for it would you cease to be an "artist"?
Why would you assume I became a Marine to garner "value" from society?
Let me make this simple. There is one thing I do share with our host.
I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHAT PEOPLE THINK. Haven't you figured that out arguing with me for the last few months?
Being a Marine isn't like being a soldier. But, there's no reason I should waste time explaining it to you. You wouldn't get it. And I wouldn't care if you did get it. It's not for you. I learned quite a bit in the Corps.
So. You are an artist. I just proclaimed that I'm one too. Let's see you do the same thing. Oh, wait. You can't. So, you done with the "I'm so fly" meme?
DMG,
I don't go up to people and talk sh!t. Now if they talk some recruitment sh!t I'll talk it. I've been a punching bag for a professional heavy weight boxer (not the most accomplished, but hits hard enough to make your knees buckle) and three seasoned mix-martial artists practitioners. I'm not talking any kung-fu/wusu bullsh!t (I did that for three years until a year old seasoned boxer beat my azz in the ring). So I do have a since of how hard someone has to hit for it to matter. Nobody's intimidated. I've been around enough dope dealers and thugs in junior high to know life threatening situations. An unarmed Marine in an airport is not exactly life threatening to me. No I'm not super-nigga but I'm not concerned about some special-ops Marine judo chop.
We could have a discussion on art if you really care.
Gee-Chee,
Who is talking about fighting? Again, I could not care any less about who punched you in the head.
By the way. A Marine is never "unarmed". It's a way of thinking, but again, you don't seem to get the point.
I don't want to have a discussion about art with you. Why should I respect your opinion on art...as you've already shown your colors. Me, me me. I'm so fly, etc, etc.
Like I haven't heard that shit all my life. Why the hell would I NOW want to discuss art with you? What more do I need to know about you? As far as I'm concerned the term artist has lost it's meaning. Everybody can claim it, everybody can do it, everything from singing off key to shitting on the floor is now "art".
One last thing, I like to brawl sure. But when I talk about a subject in which I'm an expert, it's business. I do it because I'm actually trying to up YOUR game, not mine.
But again, what do I care if you are content at sitting on the wrung where you are now?
Popular Culture. That's just another phrase for lowest common denominator.-DMG
Yeah but kids want to be Jay-Z before a Marine. The point IS, you blabbering about being a Marine. I'll tell you the art world ain't sh!t, before you can say Lichtenstein. I'm not in it to serve, I'm in it to sell. Call yourself an artist, good. I'll attend your exhibit out of your garage and negotiate a price to encourage you. "Artists" less qualified than you making 300g's a pop. That's the difference.
Are you a career soldier or an MD? You took your son snow boarding off a veterans paycheck or a MD paycheck. Yeah, but you preaching.
Some kids want to be pimps and drug dealers too. What's your point?
Difference between you and me, is that I'm not in my career to "sell". If the government took over and made all of us employees and cut my salary by 2/3's I wouldn't miss a beat. I wouldn't do any other job.
That's what you don't seem to get. I don't care about the cash. Never did. It's nice, I think I should be compensated well, but at the end of the day as long as I have roof over head, food in cupboard, I'm cool.
I don't want to have a discussion about art with you. Why should I respect your opinion on art...as you've already shown your colors. Me, me me. I'm so fly, etc, etc.-DMG
I bet any quote you bring from me, that gave you the impression of arrogance, that I can break it off in the context it was made. I'm very calculated with my words when it comes to vanity.
^^
Not a challenge, but if you were offended by it, I will take a moment to explain it. I'm not on some belittling sh!t.
You couldn't offend me. See my comment above about what trait I share with the host.
Again, I'm not interested.
^^^Good, then you have nothing to back the charges. It’s settled.
To clarify, NOT tripping on any artists in the art world. I'm talking about the institution. Not tripping on artists that make a grip. I want them to do it.
"I'm overchargin' niggaz for what they did to the Cold Crush
Pay us like you owe us for all the years that you hold us"
Especially when they know they don’t believe in it themselves. That is a form of art. Especially when they talk the jargon in front of a crowd of art historians, professors, collectors and curators then turn around behind closed doors and piss on a painting and push it for 30g’s. Yes that happens. There is psychology in what they do. The same psychology that has people believe the way to health is through popular medicine. Everyone fully understands your position on that, whether one dislikes the statement or not, it is a marketed psychology. It has commercials, the school nurse tells parent vaccinations are mandatory to be in school, medicine is expensive like art so it must be important. Marketing. A psychology. That’s why Edward Bernays is a true artist. He outstrips Warhol because his influence extends beyond four walls and a paint brush.
$800.00 for an MD to tell me to give my son Gatoraid. Yes, my art inexhaustibly contributes to this world.
Sure, it does Gee-Chee. I'm sure it does.
You don't like the bill? Next time don't go to Physician. Do it yourself...it's all just psychology anyway, right?.
And hey, you've got the internet. What more could you need?
"Artists" less qualified than you making 300g's a pop.
Skrippers and jizzbags pullin down a milli......,
Yeah but kids want to be Jay-Z before a Marine.
Will the adolescent Plantationisms never cease?!?!?!
bears repeating;
Great thing about art.
Anyone can do it.
Anyone can claim it.
Anyone can claim their art is fantastic.
Someone can literally defecate on canvas and it will still be called art by someone.
Now...what does that say about the term artist?
Actually, DMG the school nurse gave the same advice for free.
Don't take it personal, gave an example how artists piss on the industry and makes money, and how the medical industry piss on the people and make money. The mound doesn't belong to you, you're a worker ant.
bears repeating;
Great thing about art.
Anyone can do it.
Anyone can claim it.
Anyone can claim their art is fantastic.
Someone can literally defecate on canvas and it will still be called art by someone.
Now...what does that say about the term artist?-CNu
I know you ain't living like the Waltons, hypocrite. Yeah, I bet every PRODUCT in your house got some kind of color, font, and composition to it. AND you taking your child to WUSU (think I don't codify my words?see above) is obviously because of it being some sort of "art that anyone can do", right? It's performance art, not fighting art Negro.
Erase art from your surroundings then type up a meaningful contribution on your desktop that some artist designed.
Actually I said that, CNu just repeated it.
But, at the end of all arguments it always comes down to "what I got", or "how much money...this and that".
Not much different than the theme of most rap songs.
"$300,000 a pop" is supposed to impress me? A Benz is supposed to impress me? Expensive designer suits and shoes are supposed to impress me?
Let's just agree that our motivations are different.
The images of black people in your "popular media" are of people who are conspicuous consumers, who have no real wealth. Who will spend $1,000 for a weave, but can't pay rent; mouth full of diamonds, but still end up in prison for not knowing the laws of the city he's performing in. Of kids who will spend 6 hours practicing free throws, talking about "dedication", but can't spell the word or fucking read his own pro contract.
And you help perpetuate it. "Look what I got". "His music is great because he's got so much cash". "I can sell this piece of shit for $$$".
Whatever man. Do what you, for the reasons you want to do it.
I have nothing against art. It just seems everyone is claiming to be an artist. If everybody is an artist what makes art special?
Again this comes down to "Sublime vs. Vulgar".
lol,
Doc, you said that text wasn't geechee's medium...,
"In real art there is nothing accidental. It is mathematics. Everything in it can be calculated, everything can be known beforehand. The artist knows and understands what he wants to convey and his work cannot produce one impression on one man and another impression on another, presuming, of course, people on one level. It will always, and with mathematical certainty, produce one and the same impression."
"At the same time the same work of art will produce different impressions on people of different levels. And people of lower levels will never receive from it what people of higher levels receive. This is real, objective art. Imagine some scientific work - a book on astronomy or chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way.
Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man." In Search of the Miraculous p.33.
Real art is the apex deliverable arising within a culture of competence.
As such, artistic praxis has almost ceased to exist, supplanted by degenerate, undisciplined, subjective gibberish palmed off on ignorant and suggestible rubes.
CNu...
Nothing... Again.
Structure and function...
The more you know about one the less you know about the other... The uncertainty principle...
Position and velocity...
Come on Craig...
YOU KNOW THAT "new life" CREATED from "scratch" IS NOT WHAT VENTER HAS DONE.
In fact, the sheer improbability of it renders the endeavor as near as impossible as one could get.
AS FAR AS WE KNOW...
It's only HAPPENED ONE TIME IN 14 billion years.
Sticking a refurbished engine in an old car ISN'T CREATING NEW LIFE FROM SCRATCH.
And "driving" isn't A MATERIAL MECHANISM.
What is the MATERIAL MECHANISM that underlies "endosymbiosis?"
When will you contend with "irreducible complexity" and the fact that evolution NEEDS A STRUCTURE on which the process of "endosymbiosis" performs?
When will you concede that the underlying MATERIAL STRUCTURE is neatly and mysteriously hidden in the quantum foam?
When will you answer as to whether you are seeking the singularity?
Why are those that devised the "evolutionary tree" NOT ON IT?
Huff puff give???
YOU KNOW THAT "new life" CREATED from "scratch" IS NOT WHAT VENTER HAS DONE.
That would only be meaningful to magical thinkers. What Venter has done is vastly more significant than that. He's shown that "life" at its most fundamental level is perfectly describable in computations.
Of course the matter matters, but the mode of material organization has fully yielded itself to human understanding and engineering control.
game over...,
Yes Craig, we are programs. We get that. You say Venter has now proved this.
Ok...
Who wrote the program?
Programs don't write themselves, do they?
An intelligent designer perhaps?
Now what?
Time to tweak the program?
Time to take some old code out and put some "new" code in?
Should we start reprogramming homosexuals, first?
The singularity, Craig...
ARE YOU SEEKING IT?
Real art is the apex deliverable arising within a culture of competence.
As such, artistic praxis has almost ceased to exist, supplanted by degenerate, undisciplined, subjective gibberish palmed off on ignorant and suggestible rubes.-CNu
Really? Post-modernism is your profound argument? The age old conversation in the art community of functional vs nonfunctional? Why? Where is this suppose to go? Is this another one of your Latin etymology gags again?
Throw out a little jab with no steam behind it, then talk about how it ain't even worth your time. There is a thread KW and I are on that you can go to, if you have anymore creaky, dusty old arguments from an outsiders perspective that we can fully deconstruct. Perhaps you'll stay put right here on this thread, because I told Ubu to stay.
Something = Our Reality
The PERFECT computation...
Input = Output...
Output = Structure/Function
So Input MUST BE WHAT gives us Structure/Function
What's the Input???
A program... Instructions... THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER...
But you know Craig WHAT THE PHYSICIST SAYS...
The uncertainty principle...
The fundamental DEMARCATION INHERENT IN SCIENCE.
Science CANNOT KNOW THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH BECAUSE IT DENIES ITS EXISTENCE.
So foolz like you claim WE ARE PROGRAMS...
"EQUATIONS" computating...
Ok... Sounds cool...
What's your EVIDENCE AGAINST my God-ordained free will?
Art... In the context of a radically autonomizing environment will first and foremost CALL OUT FOR CRITIQUE. But the critique must be rooted in an experience not radically autonomized.
In a land of radical autonomists, art is just the art of radical autonomy and the critique is bound by those parameters. Art becomes everything and nothing.
The critique must be rooted in how much truth the art conveys. Only this determination can seperate art from
non-art. And so the critiquer shall be judged on his truthfulness. His truthfullness allows him to become a "definer" of art.
Who wrote the program?
Who cares?
Should we start reprogramming homosexuals, first?
nah.., a simple but overwhelmingly effective bioweapon targetting dumbasses...,
The singularity, Craig... ARE YOU SEEKING IT?
Define singularity? {in unambiguous terms}
Perhaps you'll stay put right here on this thread, because I told Ubu to stay.
Correct.
But only because tou have nothing of value to offer.
It appears you may be in luck however geechee;
Art... In the context of a radically autonomizing environment will first and foremost CALL OUT FOR CRITIQUE. But the critique must be rooted in an experience not radically autonomized.
Evidently Thordaddy's game to discuss the finer points of "art"...,
You fellaz enjoy yourselves now, y'hear?
The singularity...
The ONE who's knowledge of the structure and function of reality is so exponentially advanced that he may alter reality in unforseen ways as though he were the event horizon and creator of the NEW perfect equation.
Imagine coming upon a fabulous one of a kind hot rod BUT you have never actually seen ONE in action. You've been able to discern some of its structure and function, but YOU WANT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT IT.
But you CAN'T... That is the universal law.
You must ALWAYS BE UNCERTAIN in regards to the complete truth of the hot rod's structure and function.
But why?
The uncertainty principle.
Position (structure) and velocity (function) CAN'T BE MEASURED EXACTLY SIMULTANEOUSLY.
The complete knowledge of the structure REQUIRES ABSOLUTE STILLNESS (no velocity) and the complete knowledge of the function REQUIRES ABSOLUTE VELOCITY (no EXACT position).
To know both EXACTLY is impossible according to the physical laws. And ultimately the physical laws IMPEDE on evolution and our ability to know EXACTLY STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION AT THE FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL.
OK Josh.., we're done here.
You reached maximum new information uptake capacity with my responses this morning, and it's been straight downhill into pure gibberish from you ever since.
Don't bother adding anything else to this thread for my attention, because unless it's really unambiguous and direct, I won't trouble myself to respond.
Instead of chasing your own tail and pretending that you have a clue, just go and assimilate the new information made easily available to you.
Craig,
You KNOW THE LIMITATIONS that the theoretical physicist has put on you.
Radical autonomist... You are uncertain. YOU MUST BE... The science REQUIRES IT.
That's why you don't care who YOUR programmer is mr. Eastern Orthodox.
Why are you SO ENTHUSIASTIC at Venter's discovery?
What does CNu see in this uncovering of more detailed structure and function?
You STILL CAN'T GET TO THE FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISM.
This drives you to madness.
Great thing about art.
Anyone can do it.
Anyone can claim it.
Anyone can claim their art is fantastic.
Someone can literally defecate on canvas and it will still be called art by someone.
Now...what does that say about the term artist?
Ummm... Isn't this true about a lot of stuff, like say "medicine" or "science"? I mean, isn't the crux of the ongoing debate on this site about which sources or "credible?"
Y'all argue about who has true sanctioning power over medicine all the time. Which "doctors" should be trusted and which "scientists" should be believed. Y'all go back and forth about the credentials of this guy versus the credentials of that guy.
To claim that "anyone" can all them an artist does not dimish the value of art anymore than the fact that damn near anyone can call themselves a "healer" or "doctor" or "scientist" dimishes the value of medicine.
While I may not be the most artsy cat, I do respect it's value because I can see how humans have used it to express feelings and concepts since the beginning of our existence. Art is important in it's own right, and just because somebody "thinks" or "claims" they are an artist, doesn't mean they are actually practicing art. That's bad logic right there, and it's amazing that cats don't see it.
The images of black people in your "popular media" are of people who are conspicuous consumers, who have no real wealth. Who will spend $1,000 for a weave, but can't pay rent; mouth full of diamonds, but still end up in prison for not knowing the laws of the city he's performing in. Of kids who will spend 6 hours practicing free throws, talking about "dedication", but can't spell the word or fucking read his own pro contract.
And you help perpetuate it. "Look what I got". "His music is great because he's got so much cash". "I can sell this piece of shit for $$$".
Whatever man. Do what you, for the reasons you want to do it.
I have nothing against art. It just seems everyone is claiming to be an artist. If everybody is an artist what makes art special?
This is the popular image of ALL people, not just black folks. The problem is that this is often the ONLY popular image of black people which is inaccurate and done for the purpose of shaping opinions.
Stereotypes abound, and judging from this comment, they have managed to penetrate deeply in some folks' minds. The idea that the majority, or a significant minority of NBA players are illiterate, is ridiculous. The idea that NBA players should be able to "read" their own contracts and understand them, as if the general public can read and understand most contracts, is also misguided.
Finally, this quote:
If everybody is an artist what makes art special is informative and goes back to my first point.
Everybody and their momma is claiming to be a "doctor" or "healer" or "scientist" these days. Does that mean that medicine or science are not special?
I think not. It means that humans will always try to inflate themselves, and their status.
The underlying belief espoused here is that if you manage to make it through medical school and become a licensed doctor you are special by virtue of the fact that you have done something that most of the general public could not do. You have special gifts, abilities and knowledge that most people do not have.
I see the same thing with artists.
CNu wrote:
This is real, objective art. Imagine some scientific work - a book on astronomy or chemistry. It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way.
Everyone who is sufficiently prepared and who is able to read this book will understand what the author means, and precisely as the author means it. An objective work of art is just such a book, except that it affects the emotional and not only the intellectual side of man
Come on CNu. You know the key words in the passage are "sufficiently prepared."
That's a huge assumption, particularly as it relates to art. Hell, it's hard for cats with similar education levels and intelligence to reach the same conclusions in complex fields of science. I can't see why it would be likely in art.
To claim that "anyone" can all them an artist does not dimish the value of art anymore than the fact that damn near anyone can call themselves a "healer" or "doctor" or "scientist" dimishes the value of medicine.
The underlying belief espoused here is that if you manage to make it through medical school and become a licensed doctor you are special by virtue of the fact that you have done something that most of the general public could not do. You have special gifts, abilities and knowledge that most people do not have.
C'mon BRAH!?!?!?!?!
Medicine adheres to scientific method and peer review - an objective canon of fact, signification, expression, and practice.
That's why it's possible to have "medical malpractice" and FDA regulations - because there are specific and repeatable standards and objective evaluation of the same.
Contemporary art has.none.of.the.above.
Stop playing with these cats in the interest of comity and kindness and uphold the critical standard(s) you've consistently demonstrated here-to-date....,
You know the key words in the passage are "sufficiently prepared."
I know no such thing Big Man.
Matter fact, from where I sit, the lynchpin of the assertion is this;
It is impossible that one person should understand it in one way and another in another way.
and that then is the beauty of science, and, where present through vital and continuing "cultures of competence" in the arts, as well.
Do you imagine that the pharaonic "style" was merely stylistic?
or,
Do you understand that there was an objective canon of signification and expression in effect there which endured for thousands of years?
Malawians must want some of that "abiotic" oil and commence to playing that homo shit after all - and with the quickness......,
MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
Post a Comment