An excellent argument. I think that creationist do enormous damage to Christianity in that they give the anti-religious left ammunition to portray Christians as below average in intelligence, fanatical in behavior, primitive in thinking, and irrelevant in general. This approach allows the anti-religious left to avoid the central ideas of Christianity and its defining roll in Western civilization.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
What is amusing about the articles title is that any variation in CO2 is unexplained. The existing models do not explain any of the CO2 levels, including methane, water vapor, etc. The assumption is that CO2 increases (including methane) are caused by humans. However, when levels decrease humans are not given the credit. This is a standard example of circular logic.
Lorenz
Well unfortunately you appear to be a fully developed racist who has no intentions of understanding any issues concerning other cultures. You play the victim well, which is what you learn in the school of leftist/ liberalism.
I mention my German background and you go off on a total racist rant. Now I also have English and Scottish. Certainly you would have some rant from that as well.
No decent conversation seams to be possible. So this one ends.
P.S. What was the name of the tribe whose land your tribe stole and what did you do to them: slavery, torture, dispersal, absorption, and of course genocide. I fully doubt that you are capable of answering any part of this question.
It is encouraging that you have read Wittfogel. He should receive a wider audience. Yes the Central American and pacific coast South American tribes had well established tribes and histories lasting millennium. One should observe that these were the higher or more advanced cultures in the Americas. Writing was established, long distance trade, and well developed agriculture. Some historians have indicated that their combined level of technology and culture rivaled 2nd or 3rd century Rome. However they still practiced constant warfare and extremely brutal treatment of captives.
You continue to focus on the European sustained colonization of the Americans as some uniquely savage period history that has never been rivaled. That is you error and why I continue to point out such examples as when the Comanche's for their territory of Comancheria who were the tribes that were replaced. So to continue the analogy, those tribes had their land stolen.
What were the indigenous peoples reactions to Europeans? That they were another tribe aside from skin color, technology, and culture. Just another tribe.
To continue to hold the apparent grudge and commensurate total vilification of the tribe who beat you and the poor victim portrayal of the tribe who lost would be equivalent for me to hold a grudge against the Romans who enslaved my German ancestors. My Italian wife would have difficulty with that one.
In closing the Europeans colonization of America had to put up with three centuries of Indian predation and savagery before the situation developed with large seasoned armed demobilization from a civil war that the final lost of patience of primitive tribal behavior that the nation of America took them out.
Stop complaining, you culture still exists, and get ride of your socialist base reservation system and victim-alogy that has crippled your culture and stunted your ability to adapt. There is no shame in you long history as there is no shame in mine. Just long histories of all to frequent violent confrontations and disruptions with periods of great achievement. Germans are prone to examine their almost 2000-year-old history from top to bottom. Examine yours in the same light. To focus on the late 19th century defeats to the exclusion of a much greater history would be equivalent to me remaining stuck in the third Reich.
Lorenz
I have not read the book, however I took a quick look at the enclosed web connections and read the review. I may purchase it. The books premise is the theme that I was following in the recent set of postings. When you have two cultures in contact, especially a technological and pre-literate, the pre-literate will be decimated, absorbed, dispersed, and defeated in war even when the technological culture is not inclined to such behavior.
The disease factor was the greatest killer. Also after the American civil war a decision was made to remove most of the indigenous tribes from areas of interest. This was achieved with industrial efficiency resulting in their devastation.
Other postings clearly implied that they're something unusual or virulent about European intentions and practices. An understanding of how other cultures compare is Karl A. "Wittfogel's Oriental Despotism, A comparative Study Of Total Power." When you obtain an understanding of how other cultures behave I would expect that complaints about European culture would diminish considerably.
Lorenz
Sounds like I have hit a nerve. However it still needs repeating that the Europeans had no plan or intention of genocide. Exploring new lands and putting them under their flag, yes. Just like the local indigenous peoples did when they drove out, exterminated, enslaved, etc. nearby tribes.
We were just a tribe that defeated the locals and allowed their culture to continue. Maybe that was the mistake.
You keep on speaking about European genocide of American aborigines. What tribe was wiped out? Also you usage implies that genocide was the intended consequence. In both cases there was not the intention nor desire nor the result. Furthermore there are no known tribes that were brought to extinction by deliberate European actions.
Now for an interesting observation. The Spanish had explored into regions that became Kansas in the earth 16th century. They kept records of their contact and noted the different tribes and associated tribal details. Two centuries later other explores who reached these areas, which were still fully dominated by indigenous tribes observed a significant change. Most of the original tribes had vanished. The tribes did not talk about some great plague so you can rule out some disease transmitted by the Europeans.
So what happened? Tribal warfare, slavery, torture, and your favorite word genocide by and against indigenous tribes.
Lorenz
The premise of your argument about invasion, conquering, and enslaving is wrong. Looks like it is based on the standard leftist anti-American/European Western culture nonsense that abounds. The initial debate was to remove the politics of tribalism and "protection" of some historical view. History should be practiced like science in general, that is accumulate information and facts and present the most accurate understanding (equivalent to a theory or hypothesis) with the understanding that this understanding will change with better data and more discoveries.
Unfortunately history today is dominated by the politics of special interest and protected minority spoils. This is not history but politics in disguise. As your opening remarks on European involvement indicate.
I purposely avoid the usual both sides are equally to blame and that the Europeans made this mistake and that error because such conversations waste valuable space discussing things that are known but often presented with great error and frankly nonsense all the time the behaviors of, in this case, American aborigines escapes scrutiny. So I began and ended with the scrutiny of the American aborigines and their abhorrent political behavior of recent decades with the reminder to the reader that as bad as then think European culture was the aborigines behavior was in actuality and practice far worse in proportion and magnitude.
A better response, however we did not do to them what they practiced upon themselves. They were defeated in battle and we allowed their culture to continue. A practice that was alien to them. Let also not forget their behavior to us during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries. Vicious and brutal genocidal attacks resulting in innocent woman and children routinely tortured, enslaved, and killed. They halted our westward expansion for over a century. It was only after the demobilization after the American civil did we rolled over them.
Also keep in mind that while two different cultures will have conflicts, it was the Americans that practiced tolerance of the aborigines, not the other way around. So we have large battle hardened armies and 3 ½ centuries of their endless crap. Most cultures would not tolerate such behavior for such a length of time.
Just what ceremonies and remembrance do American aborigines have for all the tribes that they exterminated? American culture has incorporated many aborigine symbols and place names. Some of our national symbols are aborigine. We even used their symbols on our currency and coins though out the 19th century.
Lorenz
When American aborigines warred against other tribes resulting in genocide, slavery, cannibalism, executions, torture, despoiling the environment etc., what are your words for this behavior. This was the norm. No writing, no reading, constant warfare that is what primitives do.
Lorenz
We question the quality of the data, not the motives of the scientist. To follow the later path is the realm of pure politics of which American aborigines are specialist. Scientific advancements are based on gathering data, qualifying it, and finding theories or hypothesis that explain the data and make further falsifiable predictions.
Put it bluntly, if some group is disturbed by some increase in knowledge or facts, that is too bad. It illustrates the overall immaturity of such a group.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Lets finally establish proof that the first Americans were not the Clovis peoples and that they may not be Siberian Asians. End this tyranny of tribal political favoritism such as that which is preventing research on Kennewick man and other anthropological finds.
An elementary statistical analysis (binomial statistics) will show that with the average tribe lasting say 100 years (disease, genocide, slavery, warfare, etc. being their demise) the statistical chance that any tribe can lay claim to 9,000 year old remains (Kennewick man) is near zero. Only tools like DNA analysis can establish genetic inheritance. Also end the purely political games played by American aborigines that every discovery on their claimed tribal lands is sacred. Notice how the location of sacred sites is not known before hand yet the mere mention of a possible find the site is declared as a known sacred site. Can you be more transparent!
The anthropological evidence has already established that there have been at least two migration waves to the Americas of which the Clovis is the last. The history of human migration and civilization development is an inheritance that belongs to all of us. When explorations of the lands that were exposed during the last ice age begin we will discover new peoples and civilizations. This human journey is our greatest story. It cannot continue to be contaminated by political special status spoils that unfortunately American aborigines have descended into.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Progress in science is often correlated with improved classification schemes. A good classification scheme allows refined and focus thinking.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
The "gravity rules" criterion does make the most logical sense of the highest planetary classification criterion. A body whose self-gravity is sufficient to shape it into a spherical body is classified as a planet. This suggests further sub-classifications such as gas giant, terrestrial/rocky, ice/rocky and ice planets. Or using a logarithmic scale we have giant, terrestrial, and minor. With this classification scheme we will add several planets to our system. They would appear to be rocky/ice and ice minor planets.
The classification of a moon is a body that is in orbit of a second body that is not a star. Remember there are some asteroids that do not meet the above classification of planet that have moons. With the above definition, then if our on moon Luna were in its own orbit it would also classify as a planet. So perhaps we should have the following sub-classification of moons: Planet-moons, and asteroid (non-planet) moons. With this classification then our system has about a dozen planet-moons.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Actually, a businessman is a more reliable judge on the environment than the environmentalists because he is trained to make judgments that have consequences--the very nature of running a business-- and must live with these judgments-loss of business, jobs, and profits. I would trust a man who lives by the consequences of his work over the judgments of a man who proposes the way things should be and work.
NAGPRA is one of the most regressive, anti-scientific laws ever written.
In addition add the statistical evidence. The average live span of an aborigine tribe is a few generations. Few last 100 years, very few last 250 years with any sense of cultural continuity. Just use the binomial probability theorem assuming an average likelihood of a tribe surviving x years and you will find for all reasonable and historical limits that no tribe can claim ancestry back 10,000 years. I should note that I use the term aborigines, instead of Native American because I am a Native American (with Germanic heritage); I was born here.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
This is what we have to do. The behavior of the American aborigines is grotesque. We know that it is the result of special status and power plays and that they all know of Caucasian peoples were in America before them. Most people care little about science but enjoy its benefits, but the groups generated by liberals will destroy scientific treasures, teachings, religions, the constitution and any value of the Western world just to get their way for the moment. For them I do not think such corrupted minds should be shown any mercy. Just look at history-it is precisely such amassed groups who have destroyed every civilization during the last 100,000 years.
Yes, this is part of the huge number of straw-man arguments that opponents of the theories of evolution (essentially creationist) create (pun definitely intended). This is an old sophomoric debating trick. Set up a straw-man so that you opponent expends his resources countering an argument that does not exists. Other favorites of mine are the missing link(s), irreducible complexity (eyes, bombardier beetle defense, wings, etc.), infinite amount of required time, no transitional forms, why are their still ancestors if we (it) evolved from..., the term evolutionist, creationist is a theory, evolution is a religion, equal time in the classroom, the earth is not old enough, etc. Essentially the entire debate with creationist is centered about their non-existent straw-men.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Here we go again with an appalling number of 3rd and 4th rate arguments about evolution or as the opponents like to call this part of theoretical biology "evolutionists". Jim's explanation about the use of the term 'theory' is very good.
I would suggest that if someone wants to make an intelligent contribution to this field of biology or any other field of science and technology one needs to 1) understand the terminology, 2) understand the concepts, 3) understand the relationship between the data (facts) and the theoretical relations, and above all else 4) understand the process of science, i.e., the scientific method and its process of self correction and weighting of data.
People who dismiss vast areas of science and all its accumulation of data, hypothesis, theories and analysis because it offends their sensibility and note their analysis is usually less than a few moments of total mental effort should not be listened to or even debated. You will be debating a 5th level argument and there is little hope of making progress or achieving even the acknowledgement of one facet or your argument.
Engage them in conversations about the weather and one's favorite flavor of ice cream.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Mr. Wiggnz, I have read several of your comments and responded to some. Is there any rhyme or reason to your disjoint remarks? Or are you a writer of sorts who is trying to be profound? One thing that you have clearly illustrated is that you know nothing of the subject of evolution and probably science in general.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
As I indicated in my previous two responses, there are many who for whatever reason do not like the concepts of evolution. One popular method is to write about the supposed probabilities against evolution. Now throw in lots of freshman chemistry, lots of probability calculations, lots of references from the same ignorant anti-evolution writings and you have an impressive book that will fool many who once again, do not understand the basic science. Just like some of the diet programs available that are fraudulent. They produce studies, testimonials, doctor so and so (argument by authority), lots of references, etc. These arguments fool those who do not understand the subject.
For example, one of my favorite arguments that illustrate the fraud behind the anti-evolutionist statistical arguments is the hemoglobin molecule. The human hemoglobin molecule consists of about 100 amino acids. Immediately we get the calculation that to reproduce human hemoglobin from 100 random amino acids is one chance in 100 factorial or about 1 in 10 ^ 156. Hence the anti-evolutionist loudly declares that evolution is impossible. This argument is then repeated endlessly in other books, articles and arguments.
Now, this is where knowledge of the subject comes in handy. Hemoglobin's function is to carry oxygen through the blood stream and deliver it to cells. The key here is the functionality of the molecule, not its make up. When we examine the hemoglobin in other animals we find that they are a little bit different, yet their functions are identical.
Lets take this 100 amino acid hemoglobin molecule and switch any pair of amino acids. Has the functionality changed? No. How many possible pairs are there: 100 * 99 or about 10 ^ 4. Also we over counted the number of possible combinations from 100 amino acids because there are many duplicates. Continuing, swap any three amino acids. Does the functionality change with all these possible combinations? A little bit. Some combinations will be more efficient and other less. Continuing we find that the odds are not 1 in 10 ^ 154, but a number much smaller. Hence the likelihood of this combination being formed in this manner is probable.
There is a basics assumption in this calculation that does not reflect how nature works. Nature (cells) does not take 100 random amino acids and assemble them into some functional form. Structures are built up from much smaller combinations. Assumes a 5 amino acid combination. Applying the anti-evolutions fraudulent computation we have 5 factorial or 120 possible way of assembling this molecule. Certainly no problem in producing this material. Nature then takes a functional 5 amino acid structures and through the evolutionary process adds additional acids resulting in new, improved or entirely different functionality. If this functionality proves useful, then it is more likely to be adapted.
Once again, you do not escape learning the science.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Perhaps my example of cubist art did not illustrate my point clearly. In saying that you do not like such art does not give you knowledge to reject the entire subject. I mean the following: While I personally do not care much for that style of art. It is a matter of personal taste. However, if someone explained the subtleties, then perhaps I would appreciate the subject better. A further example. An often used criticism of religion is that there is no God hence the theological component collapses and we can dispense with religion all together. Now from a logic view there is some validity in this argument, in that religions (for example, Christianity) are based on the existence, belief, and faith in God and that the theological consequences follow. If this central pillar were to fall, then indeed the theological part of religions would collapse. Instead I would ask the question this way; let's accept God, now what are the consequences of God, the theological, social, and cultural components. How does this evolve, how does this affect the way we live, etc. In this approach, I am learning about a subject that I may think is in error. I am asking questions.
Now you can continue to dislike the subject of evolution. Perhaps you need to examine the reasons why. Evolution theory is a major branch of science. As in all branches of science they consists of large numbers of facts, hypothesis and theories connecting those facts. The theories give it context. Since scientific theories are interconnected, i.e., not isolated disjoint little islands of a few facts and theories, then the consequence of falsification of a well tested theory has consequences on all other branches. Indeed there are cases where there have been faulty assumptions that have been corrected that required reevaluation of calculations and conclusions across several fields of science because of this interconnectedness.
As in all branches of science the hypothesis and theories are constantly being updated, modified, and verified. The set of explanatory theories called evolution are indeed changing. Evolution is not in doubt, however the details of the mechanisms and interrelationships are still being worked out. As more data becomes available and the technology improves the details of evolution will become clearer.
So indeed, in this case you need to understand the subject so that you can make constructive criticisms, analysis, and verifiable hypothesis. If you do not want to learn the subject that you apparently so detest and you wish to continue with your unsupported diatribes, then you will remain ignorant. No one should listen to you on the subject because you know noting about it.
Several good examples that illustrate evolution and its principles are: the books by Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb", "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", "The Mismeasure of Man", the journal "Creation/Evolution", the book "The Moral Animal Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology", many articles in the magazine "Natural History" such as 7/01-8/01 issue, Scientific American "Human Ancestors", the September 1993 issue "Life, Death and The Immune System", and many articles in the pier review journals.
I should add that I can't stand Stephen Jay Gould's politics for he was a socialist, yet his scientific writings as illustrated in his books are excellent.
So yes you do not have to be a scholar to understand fundamentals of a subject, however, you do have to know something about the subject so that you can make constructive and intelligent criticisms. You have a decent reading list, so get started.
The problem that you have is that you have no understanding of evolution. You do know that you dislike what you think are evolutionary concepts. You should examine your reasons for your discord with this fundamental branch of science. It is easy to say, for example, that because you do not like cubist art that you dislike all art. Likewise, some study of evolution would benefit your understanding and perhaps mitigate your feelings towards the subject. Now by study, I do not mean tracks and articles by those who do not like evolution. Almost all are based on ignorance, dishonesty and fraud. The study of evolution is an excellent example of the application of logic, reason and analysis of data without using high level mathematics such as Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism or Einstein's theory of gravity (General Relativity). Read some books that give a pedagogical explanation.
Good luck
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Lockheed Martin NE&SS
The simple answer is yes. In fact C++ is a very powerful tool for scientific programming. Solid scientific programming rests on structures such as abstract data types (i.e., containers) such as multi-dimensional arrays, maps, linked-lists, trees; concepts such as common structure; data encapsulation, templates, etc.
One book that I would recommend is Scientific and Engineering C++: An Introduction With Advanced Techniques and Examples by John J. Barton, Lee R. Nackman
ISBN: 0201533936, 1994.
This is one of the best and literally breath-taking books on scientific C++ programming; the chapters on Arrays and Templates are worth the price alone. Do not be fooled by the publication date of 1994, the template concepts illustrate are only now coming into use. Some of the material is advanced, however, the books web site allows down loading of all example source code.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Lockheed-Martin
Slashdot Mirror
An excellent argument. I think that creationist do enormous damage to Christianity in that they give the anti-religious left ammunition to portray Christians as below average in intelligence, fanatical in behavior, primitive in thinking, and irrelevant in general. This approach allows the anti-religious left to avoid the central ideas of Christianity and its defining roll in Western civilization. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
What is amusing about the articles title is that any variation in CO2 is unexplained. The existing models do not explain any of the CO2 levels, including methane, water vapor, etc. The assumption is that CO2 increases (including methane) are caused by humans. However, when levels decrease humans are not given the credit. This is a standard example of circular logic. Lorenz
Well unfortunately you appear to be a fully developed racist who has no intentions of understanding any issues concerning other cultures. You play the victim well, which is what you learn in the school of leftist/ liberalism. I mention my German background and you go off on a total racist rant. Now I also have English and Scottish. Certainly you would have some rant from that as well. No decent conversation seams to be possible. So this one ends. P.S. What was the name of the tribe whose land your tribe stole and what did you do to them: slavery, torture, dispersal, absorption, and of course genocide. I fully doubt that you are capable of answering any part of this question.
It is encouraging that you have read Wittfogel. He should receive a wider audience. Yes the Central American and pacific coast South American tribes had well established tribes and histories lasting millennium. One should observe that these were the higher or more advanced cultures in the Americas. Writing was established, long distance trade, and well developed agriculture. Some historians have indicated that their combined level of technology and culture rivaled 2nd or 3rd century Rome. However they still practiced constant warfare and extremely brutal treatment of captives. You continue to focus on the European sustained colonization of the Americans as some uniquely savage period history that has never been rivaled. That is you error and why I continue to point out such examples as when the Comanche's for their territory of Comancheria who were the tribes that were replaced. So to continue the analogy, those tribes had their land stolen. What were the indigenous peoples reactions to Europeans? That they were another tribe aside from skin color, technology, and culture. Just another tribe. To continue to hold the apparent grudge and commensurate total vilification of the tribe who beat you and the poor victim portrayal of the tribe who lost would be equivalent for me to hold a grudge against the Romans who enslaved my German ancestors. My Italian wife would have difficulty with that one. In closing the Europeans colonization of America had to put up with three centuries of Indian predation and savagery before the situation developed with large seasoned armed demobilization from a civil war that the final lost of patience of primitive tribal behavior that the nation of America took them out. Stop complaining, you culture still exists, and get ride of your socialist base reservation system and victim-alogy that has crippled your culture and stunted your ability to adapt. There is no shame in you long history as there is no shame in mine. Just long histories of all to frequent violent confrontations and disruptions with periods of great achievement. Germans are prone to examine their almost 2000-year-old history from top to bottom. Examine yours in the same light. To focus on the late 19th century defeats to the exclusion of a much greater history would be equivalent to me remaining stuck in the third Reich. Lorenz
I have not read the book, however I took a quick look at the enclosed web connections and read the review. I may purchase it. The books premise is the theme that I was following in the recent set of postings. When you have two cultures in contact, especially a technological and pre-literate, the pre-literate will be decimated, absorbed, dispersed, and defeated in war even when the technological culture is not inclined to such behavior. The disease factor was the greatest killer. Also after the American civil war a decision was made to remove most of the indigenous tribes from areas of interest. This was achieved with industrial efficiency resulting in their devastation. Other postings clearly implied that they're something unusual or virulent about European intentions and practices. An understanding of how other cultures compare is Karl A. "Wittfogel's Oriental Despotism, A comparative Study Of Total Power." When you obtain an understanding of how other cultures behave I would expect that complaints about European culture would diminish considerably. Lorenz
Sounds like I have hit a nerve. However it still needs repeating that the Europeans had no plan or intention of genocide. Exploring new lands and putting them under their flag, yes. Just like the local indigenous peoples did when they drove out, exterminated, enslaved, etc. nearby tribes. We were just a tribe that defeated the locals and allowed their culture to continue. Maybe that was the mistake.
You keep on speaking about European genocide of American aborigines. What tribe was wiped out? Also you usage implies that genocide was the intended consequence. In both cases there was not the intention nor desire nor the result. Furthermore there are no known tribes that were brought to extinction by deliberate European actions. Now for an interesting observation. The Spanish had explored into regions that became Kansas in the earth 16th century. They kept records of their contact and noted the different tribes and associated tribal details. Two centuries later other explores who reached these areas, which were still fully dominated by indigenous tribes observed a significant change. Most of the original tribes had vanished. The tribes did not talk about some great plague so you can rule out some disease transmitted by the Europeans. So what happened? Tribal warfare, slavery, torture, and your favorite word genocide by and against indigenous tribes. Lorenz
The premise of your argument about invasion, conquering, and enslaving is wrong. Looks like it is based on the standard leftist anti-American/European Western culture nonsense that abounds. The initial debate was to remove the politics of tribalism and "protection" of some historical view. History should be practiced like science in general, that is accumulate information and facts and present the most accurate understanding (equivalent to a theory or hypothesis) with the understanding that this understanding will change with better data and more discoveries.
Unfortunately history today is dominated by the politics of special interest and protected minority spoils. This is not history but politics in disguise. As your opening remarks on European involvement indicate.
I purposely avoid the usual both sides are equally to blame and that the Europeans made this mistake and that error because such conversations waste valuable space discussing things that are known but often presented with great error and frankly nonsense all the time the behaviors of, in this case, American aborigines escapes scrutiny. So I began and ended with the scrutiny of the American aborigines and their abhorrent political behavior of recent decades with the reminder to the reader that as bad as then think European culture was the aborigines behavior was in actuality and practice far worse in proportion and magnitude.
A better response, however we did not do to them what they practiced upon themselves. They were defeated in battle and we allowed their culture to continue. A practice that was alien to them. Let also not forget their behavior to us during the 16th, 17th, 18th, and early 19th centuries. Vicious and brutal genocidal attacks resulting in innocent woman and children routinely tortured, enslaved, and killed. They halted our westward expansion for over a century. It was only after the demobilization after the American civil did we rolled over them. Also keep in mind that while two different cultures will have conflicts, it was the Americans that practiced tolerance of the aborigines, not the other way around. So we have large battle hardened armies and 3 ½ centuries of their endless crap. Most cultures would not tolerate such behavior for such a length of time. Just what ceremonies and remembrance do American aborigines have for all the tribes that they exterminated? American culture has incorporated many aborigine symbols and place names. Some of our national symbols are aborigine. We even used their symbols on our currency and coins though out the 19th century. Lorenz
When American aborigines warred against other tribes resulting in genocide, slavery, cannibalism, executions, torture, despoiling the environment etc., what are your words for this behavior. This was the norm. No writing, no reading, constant warfare that is what primitives do. Lorenz
We question the quality of the data, not the motives of the scientist. To follow the later path is the realm of pure politics of which American aborigines are specialist. Scientific advancements are based on gathering data, qualifying it, and finding theories or hypothesis that explain the data and make further falsifiable predictions. Put it bluntly, if some group is disturbed by some increase in knowledge or facts, that is too bad. It illustrates the overall immaturity of such a group. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Lets finally establish proof that the first Americans were not the Clovis peoples and that they may not be Siberian Asians. End this tyranny of tribal political favoritism such as that which is preventing research on Kennewick man and other anthropological finds. An elementary statistical analysis (binomial statistics) will show that with the average tribe lasting say 100 years (disease, genocide, slavery, warfare, etc. being their demise) the statistical chance that any tribe can lay claim to 9,000 year old remains (Kennewick man) is near zero. Only tools like DNA analysis can establish genetic inheritance. Also end the purely political games played by American aborigines that every discovery on their claimed tribal lands is sacred. Notice how the location of sacred sites is not known before hand yet the mere mention of a possible find the site is declared as a known sacred site. Can you be more transparent! The anthropological evidence has already established that there have been at least two migration waves to the Americas of which the Clovis is the last. The history of human migration and civilization development is an inheritance that belongs to all of us. When explorations of the lands that were exposed during the last ice age begin we will discover new peoples and civilizations. This human journey is our greatest story. It cannot continue to be contaminated by political special status spoils that unfortunately American aborigines have descended into. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Progress in science is often correlated with improved classification schemes. A good classification scheme allows refined and focus thinking. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
The "gravity rules" criterion does make the most logical sense of the highest planetary classification criterion. A body whose self-gravity is sufficient to shape it into a spherical body is classified as a planet. This suggests further sub-classifications such as gas giant, terrestrial/rocky, ice/rocky and ice planets. Or using a logarithmic scale we have giant, terrestrial, and minor. With this classification scheme we will add several planets to our system. They would appear to be rocky/ice and ice minor planets. The classification of a moon is a body that is in orbit of a second body that is not a star. Remember there are some asteroids that do not meet the above classification of planet that have moons. With the above definition, then if our on moon Luna were in its own orbit it would also classify as a planet. So perhaps we should have the following sub-classification of moons: Planet-moons, and asteroid (non-planet) moons. With this classification then our system has about a dozen planet-moons. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Actually, a businessman is a more reliable judge on the environment than the environmentalists because he is trained to make judgments that have consequences--the very nature of running a business-- and must live with these judgments-loss of business, jobs, and profits. I would trust a man who lives by the consequences of his work over the judgments of a man who proposes the way things should be and work.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Can you explain you reference to the forst law of thermodymanics? Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
NAGPRA is one of the most regressive, anti-scientific laws ever written. In addition add the statistical evidence. The average live span of an aborigine tribe is a few generations. Few last 100 years, very few last 250 years with any sense of cultural continuity. Just use the binomial probability theorem assuming an average likelihood of a tribe surviving x years and you will find for all reasonable and historical limits that no tribe can claim ancestry back 10,000 years. I should note that I use the term aborigines, instead of Native American because I am a Native American (with Germanic heritage); I was born here. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
This is what we have to do. The behavior of the American aborigines is grotesque. We know that it is the result of special status and power plays and that they all know of Caucasian peoples were in America before them. Most people care little about science but enjoy its benefits, but the groups generated by liberals will destroy scientific treasures, teachings, religions, the constitution and any value of the Western world just to get their way for the moment. For them I do not think such corrupted minds should be shown any mercy. Just look at history-it is precisely such amassed groups who have destroyed every civilization during the last 100,000 years.
Yes, this is part of the huge number of straw-man arguments that opponents of the theories of evolution (essentially creationist) create (pun definitely intended). This is an old sophomoric debating trick. Set up a straw-man so that you opponent expends his resources countering an argument that does not exists. Other favorites of mine are the missing link(s), irreducible complexity (eyes, bombardier beetle defense, wings, etc.), infinite amount of required time, no transitional forms, why are their still ancestors if we (it) evolved from ..., the term evolutionist, creationist is a theory, evolution is a religion, equal time in the classroom, the earth is not old enough, etc. Essentially the entire debate with creationist is centered about their non-existent straw-men.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Here we go again with an appalling number of 3rd and 4th rate arguments about evolution or as the opponents like to call this part of theoretical biology "evolutionists". Jim's explanation about the use of the term 'theory' is very good. I would suggest that if someone wants to make an intelligent contribution to this field of biology or any other field of science and technology one needs to 1) understand the terminology, 2) understand the concepts, 3) understand the relationship between the data (facts) and the theoretical relations, and above all else 4) understand the process of science, i.e., the scientific method and its process of self correction and weighting of data. People who dismiss vast areas of science and all its accumulation of data, hypothesis, theories and analysis because it offends their sensibility and note their analysis is usually less than a few moments of total mental effort should not be listened to or even debated. You will be debating a 5th level argument and there is little hope of making progress or achieving even the acknowledgement of one facet or your argument. Engage them in conversations about the weather and one's favorite flavor of ice cream. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Mr. Wiggnz, I have read several of your comments and responded to some. Is there any rhyme or reason to your disjoint remarks? Or are you a writer of sorts who is trying to be profound? One thing that you have clearly illustrated is that you know nothing of the subject of evolution and probably science in general. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
As I indicated in my previous two responses, there are many who for whatever reason do not like the concepts of evolution. One popular method is to write about the supposed probabilities against evolution. Now throw in lots of freshman chemistry, lots of probability calculations, lots of references from the same ignorant anti-evolution writings and you have an impressive book that will fool many who once again, do not understand the basic science. Just like some of the diet programs available that are fraudulent. They produce studies, testimonials, doctor so and so (argument by authority), lots of references, etc. These arguments fool those who do not understand the subject. For example, one of my favorite arguments that illustrate the fraud behind the anti-evolutionist statistical arguments is the hemoglobin molecule. The human hemoglobin molecule consists of about 100 amino acids. Immediately we get the calculation that to reproduce human hemoglobin from 100 random amino acids is one chance in 100 factorial or about 1 in 10 ^ 156. Hence the anti-evolutionist loudly declares that evolution is impossible. This argument is then repeated endlessly in other books, articles and arguments. Now, this is where knowledge of the subject comes in handy. Hemoglobin's function is to carry oxygen through the blood stream and deliver it to cells. The key here is the functionality of the molecule, not its make up. When we examine the hemoglobin in other animals we find that they are a little bit different, yet their functions are identical. Lets take this 100 amino acid hemoglobin molecule and switch any pair of amino acids. Has the functionality changed? No. How many possible pairs are there: 100 * 99 or about 10 ^ 4. Also we over counted the number of possible combinations from 100 amino acids because there are many duplicates. Continuing, swap any three amino acids. Does the functionality change with all these possible combinations? A little bit. Some combinations will be more efficient and other less. Continuing we find that the odds are not 1 in 10 ^ 154, but a number much smaller. Hence the likelihood of this combination being formed in this manner is probable. There is a basics assumption in this calculation that does not reflect how nature works. Nature (cells) does not take 100 random amino acids and assemble them into some functional form. Structures are built up from much smaller combinations. Assumes a 5 amino acid combination. Applying the anti-evolutions fraudulent computation we have 5 factorial or 120 possible way of assembling this molecule. Certainly no problem in producing this material. Nature then takes a functional 5 amino acid structures and through the evolutionary process adds additional acids resulting in new, improved or entirely different functionality. If this functionality proves useful, then it is more likely to be adapted. Once again, you do not escape learning the science. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
Perhaps my example of cubist art did not illustrate my point clearly. In saying that you do not like such art does not give you knowledge to reject the entire subject. I mean the following: While I personally do not care much for that style of art. It is a matter of personal taste. However, if someone explained the subtleties, then perhaps I would appreciate the subject better. A further example. An often used criticism of religion is that there is no God hence the theological component collapses and we can dispense with religion all together. Now from a logic view there is some validity in this argument, in that religions (for example, Christianity) are based on the existence, belief, and faith in God and that the theological consequences follow. If this central pillar were to fall, then indeed the theological part of religions would collapse. Instead I would ask the question this way; let's accept God, now what are the consequences of God, the theological, social, and cultural components. How does this evolve, how does this affect the way we live, etc. In this approach, I am learning about a subject that I may think is in error. I am asking questions.
Now you can continue to dislike the subject of evolution. Perhaps you need to examine the reasons why. Evolution theory is a major branch of science. As in all branches of science they consists of large numbers of facts, hypothesis and theories connecting those facts. The theories give it context. Since scientific theories are interconnected, i.e., not isolated disjoint little islands of a few facts and theories, then the consequence of falsification of a well tested theory has consequences on all other branches. Indeed there are cases where there have been faulty assumptions that have been corrected that required reevaluation of calculations and conclusions across several fields of science because of this interconnectedness.
As in all branches of science the hypothesis and theories are constantly being updated, modified, and verified. The set of explanatory theories called evolution are indeed changing. Evolution is not in doubt, however the details of the mechanisms and interrelationships are still being worked out. As more data becomes available and the technology improves the details of evolution will become clearer.
So indeed, in this case you need to understand the subject so that you can make constructive criticisms, analysis, and verifiable hypothesis. If you do not want to learn the subject that you apparently so detest and you wish to continue with your unsupported diatribes, then you will remain ignorant. No one should listen to you on the subject because you know noting about it.
Several good examples that illustrate evolution and its principles are: the books by Stephen Jay Gould, "The Panda's Thumb", "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes", "The Mismeasure of Man", the journal "Creation/Evolution", the book "The Moral Animal Why We Are The Way We Are: The New Science Of Evolutionary Psychology", many articles in the magazine "Natural History" such as 7/01-8/01 issue, Scientific American "Human Ancestors", the September 1993 issue "Life, Death and The Immune System", and many articles in the pier review journals.
I should add that I can't stand Stephen Jay Gould's politics for he was a socialist, yet his scientific writings as illustrated in his books are excellent.
So yes you do not have to be a scholar to understand fundamentals of a subject, however, you do have to know something about the subject so that you can make constructive and intelligent criticisms. You have a decent reading list, so get started.
Lorenz H. Menke, Jr.
The problem that you have is that you have no understanding of evolution. You do know that you dislike what you think are evolutionary concepts. You should examine your reasons for your discord with this fundamental branch of science. It is easy to say, for example, that because you do not like cubist art that you dislike all art. Likewise, some study of evolution would benefit your understanding and perhaps mitigate your feelings towards the subject. Now by study, I do not mean tracks and articles by those who do not like evolution. Almost all are based on ignorance, dishonesty and fraud. The study of evolution is an excellent example of the application of logic, reason and analysis of data without using high level mathematics such as Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism or Einstein's theory of gravity (General Relativity). Read some books that give a pedagogical explanation. Good luck Lorenz H. Menke, Jr. Lockheed Martin NE&SS
The simple answer is yes. In fact C++ is a very powerful tool for scientific programming. Solid scientific programming rests on structures such as abstract data types (i.e., containers) such as multi-dimensional arrays, maps, linked-lists, trees; concepts such as common structure; data encapsulation, templates, etc. One book that I would recommend is Scientific and Engineering C++: An Introduction With Advanced Techniques and Examples by John J. Barton, Lee R. Nackman ISBN: 0201533936, 1994. This is one of the best and literally breath-taking books on scientific C++ programming; the chapters on Arrays and Templates are worth the price alone. Do not be fooled by the publication date of 1994, the template concepts illustrate are only now coming into use. Some of the material is advanced, however, the books web site allows down loading of all example source code. Lorenz H. Menke, Jr. Lockheed-Martin