BS: Darwin's Witnesses

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 01:24 PM

Agreed, JtS. Where would Poe or King fit in; are such even relavent herein or is that too far a variant?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 01:01 PM

Indeed, Jack.

Why, Stim, sometimes characters even disagree with one another. So what then?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 12:20 PM

It occurs to me that a good storyteller uses archetypes to say something about the human condition.

I don't think Fagin expressed the world view of Dickens or MacBeth the views of Shakespeare or Dr. No of Flemming.

I think that even Huck Finn's perspective was not entirely that of Twain.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 09:36 AM

It occurs to me, MthGM, that it would be dangerous not to to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 07:09 AM

Who would read Wilde, or others for that matter, after finding the site re Noah's "Ark"? I mean, what about it's suggested reading, "Parents warned of teen trend of snorting Smarties"? Sounds like crackerjack stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:45 AM

I think you're letting your own opinions of Wilde cloud your judgement. I prefer to go to primary sources - specifically Wilde's own words, such as his extremely serious-minded pamphlet, 'The Soul of Man Under Socialism' which explains his political beliefs in considerable detail. Wilde was not just anti-establishment but very much anti-state. In his biography of Wilde, Ellman quotes him as saying: "I think I am rather more than a Socialist, I am something of an Anarchist, I believe...". You'll also find references in 'De Profundis'. In his history of Anarchism, 'Demanding the Impossible', Peter Marshall devotes a whole section to Wilde in his chapter on British Libertarians, talking of how Wilde was fond of quoting Chuang Tzu, especially, "...there has never been such a thing as governing mankind". Plenty of evidence of Wilde's anarchistic beliefs if you look for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:27 AM

But, leveller, as always with Wilde, so difficult to distinguish sincerity from flamboyant affectation. Why would he self-confess to socialist-anarchism & 'rail against the establishment', except, I cannot help suspecting, to personify one of those epigrammatic paradoxes in which he took such delight, what with his exquisiteness in dress and public persona and his treasured aristocratic connections? Wilde's view of Kropotkin was one widely held: he was much admired, among others, by William Morris & Bernard Shaw. But wouldn't one just like to know what might have been Kropotkin's opinion of Wilde!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: theleveller
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 06:02 AM

"Always dangerous, tho, to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters: esp, as here Stim, when its spoken by a habitually cynical Englishwoman created by an Irishman."

Yes, but this is very much an opinion which he expressed in his political writings. Don't forget that Wilde was a self-confessed socialist-anarchist who, after meeting Kropotkin, considered his life to be one of the two most perfect lives he had ever come across. He railed against the establishment and most forms of state control and these opinions are reflected even in his lighter-hearted work.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 03:44 AM

Always dangerous, tho, to attribute to a writer an opinion expressed by one of his characters: esp, as here Stim, when its spoken by a habitually cynical Englishwoman created by an Irishman. Typical other observation:
"To lose one parent, may be regarded as a misfortune. To lose both looks like carelessness."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:41 AM

You don't have to be read the Bible to be untrustworthy, Jack. The educated can be quite untrustworthy, as well (present company excluded, of course) I believe Mr. Wilde said "in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever."

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:39 AM

Don't you mean rain on our parade for 40 days and nights?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Jan 14 - 02:22 AM

Turned on the computer, and Found this on yahoo homepage..sorry to piss on your campfire

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:46 PM

I would think the least trustworthy among us are the ones who demand trust because they "read it in the Bible" of even worse "because God told them."

Obviously education and experience in personal interaction are the keys in knowing who and what to trust.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 04:48 PM

and, Pete: "....if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?"

Because, Pete, those chemical processes have similar, if not identical, foundations; and we can, with a little effort, learn what passes for rational human discourse. That is, we have ways to 'trust' a person's language and its meaning, whether we agree with them or not.

Is that what you were asking about, or did I miss the import? (It was a bit of a oblique question.)

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 03:22 PM

When I was in college/university, the chairman of the philosophy dept. was Anthony C. 'Tony' Genova. He was a brilliant man, and helpful & personable. He could discuss almost any facet of philosophical thought and ended his career as an emeritus professor at the Univ. of Kansas. It was always a problem when a 2 hour graduate seminar class ended, as Genova would be so wound up in trains of thought that he found it hard to just stop.... everything led to something else!

We graduate students sometimes referred to ourselves as "Genova's Witnesses" (though never within his hearing)...kinda cute, hmm?
   But the point was NOT that he had some 'truth' that we subscribed to, but rather that he had an attitude and an understanding of issues that made his scholarship well worth emulating.

My basic approach to knowledge is that, IF one learns 'how' to think, evaluate and to process data & ideas, one will navigate the churning, complex seas of science, religion, opinion, theory and propaganda in a fairly sensible way.

Learning 'how to think' won't necessarily give a person all the answers and it certainly won't 'prove' any one theory over another, but it WILL help avoid the most awkward pitfalls and silliness one encounters. Contrary to what 'some' seem to accept, there are basic rules for evaluating rhetoric, logic, scientific claims and metaphysical concepts.... much like mathematics does in other areas.
The problem? There are no simple answers that would fit on a poster on the wall... and much of the human race seems to be willing to settle for "poster philosophy".

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 08:33 AM

Dawkins' witnesses would be a whole other matter. For one thing the joke would not be so funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 08:18 AM

pete, I googled SaRfati and find he's another of your creationist loons. On the website that I consulted, one commentator pointed out that Sarfati's "refutation of Dawkins" doesn't seem to be available in 'normal' bookshops (unlike Richard Dawkins' book) but, presumably, has to be ordered from some dubious 'creationist foundation' - correct me if I'm wrong (?)

This is the best comment I found on the matter:

"If I dismiss this book without reading it then I am as closed minded as religious people who refuse to read Mr Dawkins' book.

However, I do not have much free time these days. So what I have decided to do is to wait until the author is awarded the Nobel Prize for disproving evolution, and THEN read the book.

That's fair isn't it?"

Perhaps, if YOU have read Sarfati's book, pete, you could go on and read Dawkins' book - and give us a comparison of the two?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:50 AM

" ... if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?"

What does that mean, pete?

However, I certainly don't trust anything a creationist says!

And who the hell is Safati? Is he as well respected within the scientific community as Richard Dawkins (remember that the term "creationist scientist" is an oxy-moron!)?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 07:45 AM

Thread drift, I suppose, but I've just been listening to Jez Lowe's "We'll hunt him down". Worth hearing, and it's on YouTube. I'm in the car (as a passenger!) So making a link is tricky.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 06:10 AM

I presume this will be the next thread to be shut down without explanation, but as a guest I cant complain.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 25 Jan 14 - 05:13 AM

bill- conundrums.....if we are accidents of chemical processes, that would include your brain. why should we trust anything anyone says?
stu- spoken like a true evangelist!
shimrod-   no I haven't. have you read safati's refutation of dawkins book?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 02:50 PM

If you are looking at it from an evolutionary perspective, who breeds more on average, The Rhodes scholar, Olympic athletes, or people of Wal*Mart?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 02:15 PM

Say it ain't so, Jack...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:56 PM

I use to ask cherubs, when I 'taught', anybody here with a brother or a sister who is an only child? Quite a few did

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 12:08 PM

The pinnacle of evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 11:44 AM

Ah, but, Les, even if they do, you might not.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Bill D
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:55 AM

"what good news does Darwin have?"

Good? I dunno.... but he sure had interesting news.

The problem is, evolution has not proceeded far enough to ensure all members of our strange species has an inborn gene for automatic recognition of their own evolutionary status..... or maybe the pinnacle OF evolution is to be able to use reason to evade reason.

Ah, conundrums! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:40 AM

I think that talking to children of parents who had no children must be a learned behavior.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:35 AM

Having children is hereditary, if your parents had no children - niether will you

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:25 AM

hmmmm

Do you need a whelkbarrow?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 10:20 AM

I think I've mutated a desire to eat more whelks than I can carry.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 09:50 AM

I ain't never gonna adapt to -32C windchill... even if I mutate meself a block heater.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 09:04 AM

MtheGM

My point about civilization is that natural selection is not such a factor when afflictions that might make one less fit, poor eyesight, genetically weak teeth etc etc, are corrected or made up for by society. I guess that that resistance to certain plague germs was once a civilizational survival trait but technology has virtually removed those germs from the biosphere.

We may not be the pinnacle of evolution, but as long as we breed as we do now, we may have reached our pinnacle of our evolution.

Of course, biologists would say that there is no pinnacle of evolution. There is only adaptation to a specific environment.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:53 AM

Yeah, but the problem is a few posts get in the way when you think yours is going to follow the one you are commenting on.

I find I try not to get old.

I'm a sucker for rejuvenation.

Mrs Musket is a keen skier and tonight we go down to The Alps for two weeks for me to prove I can ski and snowboard with all the other teenagers. Packed plenty of ibuprofen so should be able to pull it off again and convince people..... Ten sodding years now since I said "Ski? Oh! I love skiing!" Trying to impress this new girlfriend.......... I suffer every late January and sometimes later in the season on the other side of the pond. Me? Beach bar every time but hey ho.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Stu
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:50 AM

."what good news does Darwin have?

You are part of a wonderful, complex and precious thread of life that is transient, interconnected and ancient. Your are made of star stuff, literally borne of mighty suns and you, like every other life form on our planet is unique and beyond material value.

You are the universe made conscious, able to contemplate it's own existence and curious about it's own nature. There is no reason to value all life more profound and beautiful than that.


"Human beings haven't evolved much at all since civilization. Technology and cooperation and yes liberal charity, take away the need for it."

Humans continue to evolve regardless of technology, and co-operation is an evolved behavioural trait present in many animals and plants (and between animals and plants). There are some interesting ongoing studies about how natural selection is working within certain populations even within modern society, one study looked at a certain village in Scandinavia that showed a degree of adaption, but I can't recall which characters they were basing this study on.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:43 AM

Sorry Ian. Just not keeping up with all the cut'n'thrust of the q&a.
Blame old age...

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:27 AM

We should provide margin notes for Michael.....

My comment was that at long last, our esteemed colleague whom I quoted is beginning to recognise evolution in the modern sense, which also was a rib at pete as a by product.

Not so good when you have to explain it, which on reflection may have been Michael's subtle plan.....

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:17 AM

Oh yes, pete - have you read that book by Prof. Dawkins, that I recommended in another thread, yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 06:15 AM

"what good news does Darwin have?"

He tells it like it is, pete - and not what a bunch of ignorant, fanatical, red-neck fundamentalists would like it to be!

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 03:40 AM

Evolution will amplify characteristics that result in having many children.
Those that lead to having few children late in life will be suppressed.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:23 AM

Ian, was your "Evolution in action" meant to be a clicky? If so, could we have a link, please?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 Jan 14 - 01:18 AM

"Is this taking the piss?"




Evolution in action

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 05:27 PM

"Since civilisation" is scarcely the sort of time-scheme within one thinks of any major evolution. Civilisation is reckoned in a lowish # of thousands (maybe 12,000). Evolution is reckoned in millions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:06 PM

"there be plenty Darwin witnesses on mudcat, even if they don't doorknock!.......and pray."

Is this "taking the piss?"

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:27 PM

Human beings haven't evolved much at all since civilization. Technology and cooperation and yes liberal charity, take away the need for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:12 PM

No reason, at that, to imagine that homo sapiens is the ultimate in evolution. Who knows what will succeed as the dominant species. The good news is that there is no foreseeable end to something or other.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: gnu
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 03:01 PM

pete... the next generation of humans will be stronger and smarter IF this generation doesn't kill them.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 01:32 PM

there be plenty Darwin witnesses on mudcat, even if they don't doorknock!.......and pray. what good news does Darwin have?

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:35 AM

Depends on the logic of others Dave.

Just because I Dad danced at a recent wedding to Culture Club singing "Church of the Poisoned Mind" doesn't mean anything other than embarrassing my wife by my dancing. Ditto listening to Lennon's Imagine on the wireless.

Yet say you don't share someone's stance or delusion, and you get psycho analysed.... JWs are an excellent example of something being so wonderful, they can't see why others don't share it.

Dragging it back to the folk circuit, Les Barker' wonderful "Jehova's Witness at the Door" springs to mind when I see this thread.

Jehova's Witness on the step
Jesus wants you for a rep.

Classic.

Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jan 14 - 04:24 AM

Conversation between me and a pair of JW's at the door.

JW: Has god ever spoken to you?

Me: Yes.

JW: And what did he say?

Me: He told me to form a religion. I have done. Will you be my first converts?

JW: Errrr?

Me: It's a really good one.

JW: But is it the real one?

Me: Yes.

JW: How do you know?

Me: God told me. Please, come in. The initiation really is quite simple.

JW (Backing away from the door): Well good luck. Sorry to have troubled you.

Me (Chasing them down the road): Awww, come back. I am sure we can have fun.

My wife: Come back in before the neighbours see you...

BTW - The cartoon in the OP is funny because it never happens. Does that mean anything to anyone? :-)

Cheers

DtG