Re: virus: Free thought and control

chardin (chardin@uabid.dom.uab.edu)
Wed, 15 Oct 1997 10:24:03 CST+6CDT

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: chardin: "RE: virus:Logic"
Previous message: Marie Foster: "Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)"
Maybe in reply to: Nathaniel Hall: "virus: Free thought and control"
Next in thread: Sodom: "Re: virus: Free thought and control"

>
> >
>
> 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.

Can I get a pretty good reference on that last statement? Chardin

>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
>
> <HTML>
> <BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
> Marie Foster wrote:
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> 
>
> <FONT
> SIZE=-1> 
>
> -----Original
> Message----- <FONT
> SIZE=-1>From: Sodom <sodom@ma.ultranet.com>
> To: virus@lucifer.com
> <virus@lucifer.com> <FONT
> SIZE=-1>Date: Friday, October 10, 1997 3:25 PM
> Subject: Re: virus: Free
> thought and control Marie Foster wrote:
> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE = "CITE">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</BLOCKQUOTE>
>    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.
> <A
> HREF="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0395877431/8170-9506757
> -983761">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0395877431/8170-9506
> 757-983761</A>
>
> 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
>  
>  
>  </BLOCKQUOTE>
>   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
> </BODY>
> </HTML>
>
> --------------8AA5527F1C771FCAB1C8DD5D--
>

Next message: chardin: "RE: virus:Logic"
Previous message: Marie Foster: "Re: The story-telling ape (was virus: Logic)"
Maybe in reply to: Nathaniel Hall: "virus: Free thought and control"
Next in thread: Sodom: "Re: virus: Free thought and control"