Evolution? How?

What if i had wings and flew out there to find out?




The ability to enterain suppositions does not substitute for the imperical imperative to be able to demonstrate one's proofs. "What if" is a feeble excuse for a proof. Absent any such proof, no one is obliged to either believe, or even entertain the notion, that the contention is correct.

You asked how it was possible for the position of a star so far away to influence your life.

You implied it was impossible.

I gave you one possibility.

No i did not ask any such question. Earlier in this thread, RexRed commented that my proposition, "George Bush eats poop sammiches and howls at the moon," was not believable. I had specifically used such a ludicrous proposition to highlight for RedRex that simply wishing to believe something is not a good basis for actually believing it. The exercise i have here offered regarding interstellar distances was a reference to his irritated remark about what things might or might not be believable. So i have suggested to him that he consider these things and ask himself if the contention that the stars have affected evolution is a believable proposition. I rather suspect, however, given what he has posted heretofore, that he continues to find it a believable proposition, despite the demonstrable foolishness of such a belief.

I have not implied that it is impossible, i have implied that it is highly improbable.



What if pigs had wings? This is mere speculation of the wool-gathering variety. The solar system and its dynamics are not relevant here--"the stars" is a locution which people use to describe celestial bodies other than the star Sol, which sits at the center of our solar system. So contentions about what effect a star may or may not have do not refer to the solar system.



You're building castles in the air. How would the "season" affect what kind of person one becomes? What is the mechanism? Can you demonstrate your thesis? Is your demonstration replicable? How would one account for sub-tropical regions, in which there are only two seasons in a year? How would one account for tropical regions, in which there are no seasons? How would one account for the temperate zones of the southern hemisphere, in which the seasons progress in an cycle two seasons removed to that of the northern hemisphere?

You have given me no "possibility." Which is why i have written: "The ability to enterain suppositions does not substitute for the imperical imperative to be able to demonstrate one's proofs. "What if" is a feeble excuse for a proof. Absent any such proof, no one is obliged to either believe, or even entertain the notion, that the contention is correct."

Your contention here is quite plain - that interstellar distances negate any possible effect on creatures of earth.

My contention is that you are ignoring the possibilities to make your point.

It is not a contention, although i would be happy to offer it as such. It was a part of a thought exercise which i offered to RedRex.

I am almost (but not entirely) speechless at your allegation that i am ignoring possiblities. I am ignoring possibilities in this specific case to exactly the same extent that i am ignoring the possibility that pigs will grow wings and fly.

You offer "the seasons" as possibly formative in the development of an individual's character. Yet you offer no description of a putative mechanism whereby this is accomplished.

This is simply wool-gathering deployed electronically.

All quite true.

I just thought your analogy was weak.

As you may well imagine by now, your thoughts on the subject are matter of indifference to me.

Good morning.

Rex, perhaps youve read that certain sections of plant genomes have become incorporated into animal genomes, and vice versa. Hypothees are that such genomic sections were "swiped" by the host in a fit of symbiotic synthesis. (The plant or animal didnt know that such swiping would serve a purpose, it just happened that eons of proximity allowed the genic component to "jump") . That may be your source of plants and animal relationships.

I aint even gonna comment on the astrology sidebar cause its friggin silly.

Although very entertaining, FM, for those of us who enjoy poking the superstitious with sharp sticks.

Morning FM,

I'll be the first to confess to having been in a "friggin silly" mood....and Setanta seemed up for a quick bar-room brawl

If you call this brawling, heaven help you if you ever are in a bar and i start swingin' . . .

This thread stepped off the train about 20 pages ago.
Not that theres anything wrong with that.

Astrology, to me, is a subject that celebrates the infinite possibilities of autocorrelation, or "post hoc..." logic.

I Velakhovsky was a closet believer in astrological projection when he was writing his "worlds in Collision" series. That didnt stop real scientists from following him in his madness.
I have to confess a certain admiration of Lynne Margulis own "world view" but, as of yet, Ive seen no evidence that makes any more sense than Jerry Seinfelds statement that "everything just evens out for me" (Thats Gaia theory in 6 words)

I'll give Velakovsky credit for putting on a helluva better show than the astrologers . . . absolute crap, but great stuff to read . . .

Any astrologer worth his salt should be able to pick up James Randi's million.

Maybe they just don't need the cash?

how so?

you mean me Farmerman?

I mean it wouldn't be hard to set up a test for reliable astrology-based prediction outside standard deviation would it?

The fact that no-one has even passed the preliminary tests for any supernatural power is a very strong argument for skepticism.

(and when I said they don't need the money, that was pure sarcasm I'm afraid)

maybe Im missing something. Isnt Randi paying only if someone CAN produce evidence of the paranormal? I read your firast post as just the opposite. Scuse me, Ive been sitting here downloading maps, so maybe Im just a bit addled today.

What was up with Alice?

Yes, Randi is paying if they produce evidence. I'm wondering if Astrologers are not charlatans, then why isn't there a queue at Randi's door?

I am absolutley skeptical, and I'm a huge fan of the scientific method.

I was only arguing with Setanta because I thought his/her logic was flawed....that might have thrown you off my point.

If I may, Alice was, that ages equivalent of Jenna Bush crossed with a little Maureen Dowd. She was quite a gifted stand up mimic and was quite a celebrity on her own. Read" T. Rex", its a nice 25 year later, follow-on to morris' "The Rise of T Roosevelt"

Eorl, ok, I see.." never mind". (R. Rosannadana)