Re: virus: Free thought and control

Sodom (sodom@ma.ultranet.com)
Tue, 14 Oct 1997 17:56:35 -0400


--------------8AA5527F1C771FCAB1C8DD5D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marie Foster wrote:

>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
> Marie Foster wrote:
>
>> chardin wrote:
>>
>> > Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which is not
>> > correct and we receive new information, the new information is
>> seldom correcting at all, but we
>> > tend to "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory. Thus, some
>> > scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new
>> information
>> > is added. This is discussed at some length in Paul
>> Watzlawick's book
>> > "How Real is Real." I find this very interesting as I see some
>> > theories in science (which I think to be incorrect) being
>> elaborated
>> > on more and more. The elaboration does not convince me that they
>> are
>> > right by any means, though the presentors think it should. Hardin
>>
>> > >
>>
>> I think a good example of this is the picture we get of early man
>> based
>> on the fossil record. The idea of evolution (change) is sound. But
>> the
>> conclusions that we evolved from... A B or C strikes me as amusing.
>> The
>> problem is that there are only some places on earth where fossils
>> tend
>> to be found due to weather, geography, etc. Yet I find scraps of
>> assumptions in many social science texts that seem to arrive at
>> views
>> about humans based on these very imcomplete records.
>>
>> Perhaps that time traveling alien might find our ancient fathers to
>> be
>> something other than than a "Naked Ape"... with all the baggage that
>>
>> entails.
>>
>> I am not trying to sway anyone here. Just that this is only one
>> example
>> of how science *might* lead us astray.
>>
>> sway astray... I like the sound of that
>>
>> Marie
>
> Sway astray is good, but the example could be better. Genetically
> we are about 95% the same as the Chimpanzee, we are amost as close to
> the other great apes (Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangatan) These species also
> demonstrate similarities in social areas, emotional areas and
> intellectual areas. An excellent book on our relationship with the
> other great apes is "Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human
> Violence". The book is effectivly paleo-anthropology, but excellent
> reading for the free thinker.
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0395877431/8170-9506757-983761
>
> This link will take you amazon.com, there are some reviews there.
> Sodom
>
>
>
> Another example. Do you know the percentage of DNA we share with a
> mouse? How about a cricket? This percentage of DNA thing does add
> fuel to the fire. It also does not explain the differences between us
> and apes. I can not remember all the physical differences and perhaps
> I will look them up. The biggest difference between us and apes is
> that we have a layer of subcutaneous fat. This is more similar to sea
> mamals.
>
>
>
> Actually, I do believe we came from some primate. The specifics I do
> not believe have been proved in any real way.
>
>
>
> (I have a list of books from this list that is approaching 20.
> However, I will add your suggestion to my list....)
>
>
>
> Marie
>
>
>

Marie,
Some of the differences are still beyond explanation, but most
aren't. The fat, nose, hands, folicle direction and a few others are
evolutionary swimmimg adaptations. No other ape can swim, these are
water adaptations. Another way is called RNA regression analysis. By
testing RNA, which is passed down female lines, we can tell species
divergence times, and thus discover where mankind diverged from the
apes. Using these techniques and others, there is no scientific doubt
that man is an ape. There is not even ANY contridicting evidence found
so far.

Also, send your books list to me if you get a chance, I need to catch up
quite a bit too.

Thanks

Sodom
Bill Roh
KING OF THE LIGHTED PATH

--------------8AA5527F1C771FCAB1C8DD5D
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Marie Foster wrote:

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
To: virus@lucifer.com <virus@lucifer.com>
Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: virus: Free thought and control
Marie Foster wrote:

chardin wrote:

> Experimentation has shown that when we have a theory which is not
> correct  and we receive new information, the new information is seldom  correcting at all, but we
> tend to "elaborate" on an already incorrect theory.  Thus, some
> scientific theories become more and more bizarre as new information
> is added.    This is discussed at some length in Paul Watzlawick's  book
> "How Real is Real."  I find this very interesting as I see some
> theories in science (which I think to be incorrect) being elaborated
> on more and more.  The elaboration does not convince me that they are
> right by any means, though the presentors think it should.  Hardin
> >

I think a good example of this is the picture we get of early man based
on the fossil record.  The idea of evolution (change) is sound.  But the
conclusions that we evolved from... A B or C strikes me as amusing.  The
problem is that there are only some places on earth where fossils tend
to be found due to weather, geography, etc.  Yet I find scraps of
assumptions in many social science texts that seem to arrive at views
about humans based on these very imcomplete records.

Perhaps that time traveling alien might find our ancient fathers to be
something other than than a "Naked Ape"... with all the baggage that
entails.

I am not trying to sway anyone here.  Just that this is only one example
of how science *might* lead us astray.

sway astray... I like the sound of that

Marie

   Sway astray is good, but the example could be better. Genetically we are about 95% the same as the Chimpanzee, we are amost as close to the other great apes (Bonobo, Gorilla, Orangatan) These species also demonstrate similarities in social areas, emotional areas and intellectual areas. An excellent book on our relationship with the other great apes is "Demonic Males - Apes and the Origins of Human Violence". The book is effectivly paleo-anthropology, but excellent reading for the free thinker.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0395877431/8170-9506757-983761

This link will take you amazon.com, there are some reviews there.
Sodom

 

Another example.  Do you know the percentage of DNA we share with a mouse?  How about a cricket?  This percentage of DNA thing does add fuel to the fire.  It also does not explain the differences between us and apes.  I can not remember all the physical differences and perhaps I will look them up.  The biggest difference between us and apes is that we have a layer of subcutaneous fat.  This is more similar to sea mamals.

 

Actually, I do believe we came from some primate.  The specifics I do not believe have been proved in any real way.

 

(I have a list of books from this list that is approaching 20.  However, I will add your suggestion to my list....)

 

Marie
 
 
 

  Marie,
    Some of the differences are still beyond explanation, but most aren't. The fat, nose, hands, folicle direction and a few others are evolutionary swimmimg adaptations. No other ape can swim, these are water adaptations.  Another way is called RNA regression analysis. By testing RNA, which is passed down female lines, we can tell species divergence times, and thus discover where mankind diverged from the apes. Using these techniques and others, there is no scientific doubt that man is an ape. There is not even ANY contridicting evidence found so far.

Also, send your books list to me if you get a chance, I need to catch up quite a bit too.

Thanks

Sodom
Bill Roh
KING OF THE LIGHTED PATH

--------------8AA5527F1C771FCAB1C8DD5D--