XPost: alt.agnosticism, alt.atheism, talk.religion.misc   
   From: a202010@lycos.com-   
      
   an acorn becoming a stately oak   
      
   can be said to be 'evolving'   
      
   on some level of appearance.   
      
      
      
   if you want to imply that people 'evolve'   
      
   in passing from infancy to adulthood   
      
   you could, and you might even say   
      
   that this is 'obvious' given the   
      
   very broad meaning of 'evolve'   
      
      
      
   this sort of 'evolution',   
      
   from acorn to stately oak,   
      
   is not, itself, changing   
      
   and is, pre-programmed   
      
   -in- the acorn itself.   
      
      
      
   so, the sleight of hand to watch for,   
      
   is in the suggestion that acorn-to-oak   
      
   is -parallelled- by mouse-to-giraffe,   
      
      
      
   because there is no pre-programmed   
      
   mechanism that can be shown which   
      
   would consistently account for   
      
   such a transformation.   
      
      
      
      
      
   say acorns and eggs and spores and such   
      
   are like decks of cards   
      
   just say it, because you can   
      
   see how a deck of cards   
      
   can be shuffled up and dealt out   
      
   in a variety of patterns,   
      
   sort of like, the whole deck is the "genotype"   
      
   and an individual 'hand' is like the "phenotype"   
      
      
   where the "genotype" is like the whole deck,   
      
   or the genetic structure of a given organism,   
      
   and the "phentotype" is a composite of "expressed" traits.   
      
      
   like, two blue eyed people can have a brown eyed child,   
      
   because, though, they both have a visible   
   trait which expresses itself as blue eyes,   
      
   at least one of them has the 'card' for brown eyes,   
   and, when they shuffle their decks together,   
   and deal out a 'hand' the cards in the 'hand'   
      
   can -express- a different individual make-up   
   from the 'hands' of either of the 'parents'   
      
      
   like, you -see- the 'hands'[phenotype] but   
   you don't -see- the entire deck[genotype].   
      
      
      
   now, you know what happens when you play   
   cards with a given deck for a wbile,   
      
   the edges may get bent and maybe even   
   tear off and a card or two may even   
   fall to the floor.   
      
      
   up to a point, you can still play   
   with cards that are bent and torn   
      
      
      
   but, bending and tearing cards,   
   is -not- a mechanism whereby a deck   
   exclusively of twos of hearts   
      
   becomes a deck of twos fours and   
   sixes of hearts diamonds and clubs.   
      
      
   so, while you may be able to show   
   me how a deck of twos of hearts,   
      
   becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,   
      
      
   what is -not- in evidence, nor seen, nor exposed critically,   
      
   is how a deck of twos of hearts, slowly and gradually,   
      
   becomes a degraded deck of twos of hearts,   
      
   -and- a deck of twos fours and sixes   
      
   of hearts diamonds and clubs.   
      
      
   it simply is -not- 'obvious'   
      
   how a process which is ripping cards apart   
      
   is also, manufacturing -new- _and_ -different- cards   
      
   which were never in the deck, and not just different cards,   
      
   but whole different suits, -while- the individual -deck-   
      
   -is- the "template" for a -replication- of the 'old' deck.   
      
      
   and...   
      
      
   what this practically demands that -bacteria- be   
   the -more- genetically rich and diverse organism   
   and that slow and gradual degradation leads to a   
   less genetically rich and diverse human being,   
      
   which is sort of like saying that you can   
   rearrange the words in "Fun With Dick and Jane"   
   to manufacture "War and Peace" -from-   
   english to russian.   
      
      
   it's not just the depth of the -alphabet-   
   which must be similar, but the depth of   
   the -vocabulary-.   
      
      
   cuz there is -no- clear mechanism which could account   
   for taking the letters from "Fun With Dick and Jane"   
   and slowly and gradually manufacturing "War and Peace"   
   analogous to a bacterium to man alteration.   
      
      
   not that it isn't a total stretch to suggest that   
   you could start with even 100 million copies of   
      
   "Fun With Dick and Jane" to produce   
      
   copies of "War and Peace"   
      
      
   -while- "Fun With Dick and Jane"   
   is pre-programmed to produce   
   "Fun With Dick and Jane"   
      
      
   people may go from reading   
   "Fun With Dick and Jane" to   
   reading "War and Peace"   
      
   but...   
      
      
   but see, that's the thing,   
      
   the claim seems to be that the process   
   which is degrading the deck is the process   
   which is responsible for driving   
   increased levels of genetic richness,   
      
   and not that there is some 'other' process   
   which entirely geared towards the increase   
   in genetic richness, and so, as a parallel   
   to the "acorn to stately oak" mechanism,   
   there is no such parallel.   
      
      
   there is no bacterium to man mechanism...   
      
   while there is an acorn to stately oak mechanism,   
      
   and so, the "sleight of hand" is the -virus- here.   
      
      
   and that "sleight of hand" is   
      
   in drawing the parallel   
      
   where none exists.   
      
      
      
   alright, so we do have analogous parallels   
   from genetic codes to language.   
      
   some people even refer to   
   the "decks" as "libraries"   
      
   so, it's really _not_ -contrary- to "reason"   
      
   to suggest an "author" of Life,   
      
   where this "author" has 'translated'   
      
   =templates= from supra-physical 'mind'   
      
   in to the physical manifestation.   
      
   a physical manifestation that was initiated by   
      
   this same supra-physical mind.   
      
      
   that's not 'beyond' "reason"   
      
      
   no, there's just some 'gap'   
      
   between this supra-physical 'mind'   
      
   and the physical manifestation which   
      
   is not -trivially- bridged.   
      
      
   but, it doesn't -require- _human_ -malice- to   
      
   fall prey to and pass on the "sleight of hand"   
      
   in presmuing the parallel   
   as described previously,   
      
   and so, i don't have to make   
   any claim of human malice   
      
   and so, i don't have to support   
   what i don't have to maintain.   
      
      
   even if the prisms and mirrors in your mind   
   lead you to jump to this conceptual conclusion   
      
   and you fail to recognize the /smokiness/   
   of your own -lack- of direct knowledge,   
      
   and you play a "sleight of hand" on your -self-   
      
   i still don't have to suggest -malice-   
      
      
   albeit, i do  not suggest that malice remains at bay...   
      
   i just don't have to maintain malice as the sole source   
   of some of this 'viral' "sleight of hand"   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)