13-01-2005 21:02									#301
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Now, an apple, a knife and sex organs can all serve a purpose

Together?

	13-01-2005 21:05									#302
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest. Let's use these terms: Function Intent Purpose Let's NOT use them interchangeably.

Does any object have an intent/purpose, or are those words reserved for actions only?

	13-01-2005 21:13									#303
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest. Let's use these terms: Function Intent Purpose Let's NOT use them interchangeably. Does any object have an intent/purpose, or are those words reserved for actions only?

No objects have intent, as something has to be conscious to have intent. A rock can't intend to do anything.

Purpose is a different beast entirely. But nothing has a purpose without intent.

	13-01-2005 21:19									#304
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Uh, by objects, I meant physical entities. Can a porpoise have a purpose? Can a human have a purpose?

	13-01-2005 21:25									#305
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by St Leo Uh, by objects, I meant physical entities. Can a porpoise have a purpose? Can a human have a purpose?

Humans, certainly. But the thing is that is a subjective thing. My purpose is to live an enjoyable life. Someone else may have a purpose to make more money.

As for other conscious animals, it's really impossible to say without being them. Since human consciousness is just an advanced form of animal consciousness, it's possible that the more intelligent animals might have purposes to their existences. But that's for them to know, not us.

So purpose is a subjective thing based on the intent of the being. We have purposes, because we have intent to do things. Apples don't have purposes, as they don't have intent. They have function.

Apples can serve the purpose of being food for us, but that's not the same as possessing a purpose.

	13-01-2005 22:06									#306
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Huh? I assume you're referring to the mammals with dinosaur bones in their stomachs. As was mentioned over and over in that thread, this is in no way an affront to the scientific merit of paleontology. Indeed, if it weren't for the scientific merit of it, the paper wouldn't have gotten published in the first place.

We have one fossil of one mammal with one small dinosaur in its belly and paleontology is rocked (no pun intended) by the discovery! How pathetic. Is there any evidence to support the existing theory that mammals were only prey for dinosaurs? No! It's an assumption based on relative sizes. Why is it so surprising to find a large-dog sized mammal that has eaten a small dinosaur? It seems very likely to me that small carnivorous mammals living in those times preyed upon anything they could catch, just as modern mammals do.

Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles).

quote: You seem to be suggesting that new information that requires modification of existing theories is somehow a challenge to scientific merit... truly bizarre!

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I expect changes to hypothesis that hit closer and closer to the 'truth' as the evidence mounts not repeated wholesale reversals of established 'theory'.

	13-01-2005 22:49									#307
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Be fair: the "rocking of the community" and all that is mostly journalistic hype. The media writes all sorts of bullshit.

Take the launch of NASA's comet probe. The headline I saw was "NASA launches comet-busting probe." Sounds exciting, right? Except it's hyped BS. The probe is designed to impact the comet and study its insides... but not to "bust" it.

I strongly suspect that any "rocking" of the paleontological community has been overblown.

-Arrian

	13-01-2005 23:08									#308
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Be fair: the "rocking of the community" and all that is mostly journalistic hype. The media writes all sorts of bullshit. I strongly suspect that any "rocking" of the paleontological community has been overblown. -Arrian

OK

Heres the abstract from the article in Nature

"Mesozoic mammals are commonly portrayed as shrew- or rat-sized animals that were mainly insectivorous, probably nocturnal and lived in the shadow of dinosaurs. The largest known Mesozoic mammal represented by substantially complete remains is Repenomamus robustus, a triconodont mammal from the Lower Cretaceous of Liaoning, China. An adult individual of R. robustus was the size of a Virginia opossum. Here we report a new species of the genus, represented by a skeleton with most of the skull and postcranium preserved in articulation. The new species is 50% larger than R. robustus in skull length. In addition, stomach contents associated with a skeleton of R. robustus reveal remains of a juvenile Psittacosaurus, a ceratopsian dinosaur. Our discoveries constitute the first direct evidence that some triconodont mammals were carnivorous and fed on small vertebrates, including young dinosaurs, and also show that Mesozoic mammals had a much greater range of body sizes than previously known. We suggest that Mesozoic mammals occupied diverse niches and that some large mammals probably competed with dinosaurs for food and territory."

	13-01-2005 23:11									#309
	Support Apolyton

That doesn't sound exactly like an earth-shattering discovery to me ...

Interesting yes, and rewriting a bit of the palaeontological account, but hardly a scientific revolution.

	13-01-2005 23:44									#310
	Put an end to popups!

Exactly. But that's boring, of course. So the media has to spruce it up a bit.

Scientists are certainly not immune to hype, either. I get warm fuzzies when I see some nerdy researcher wax poetic about how his/her research will "revolutionize" our understanding of... whatever. But deep down I know said nerdy researcher is most likely exaggerating.

-Arrian

	13-01-2005 23:48									#311
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH . Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles). .

Only ONE was fake, the rest are perfectly authentic.

There was a ID person on the BBC last night (We get the BBC on NPR at night) making all sorts of stupid claims, like saying cell structure can't be explained by evolution, and when the journalist asked him to elaborate he completely ducked the question.

I WANT EVIDICE FROM YOU CREATIONIST FOOLS, NOT BS.



SpencerH, most Mesozoic mammals WERE shrew to rat size, and hence too small to eat dino hatchlings, there were a few, like this one, that were larger, but they were rare. This does suprise me that this was a triconodont (a member of the group of mostly tiny Mesozoic mammals ancestral to living mammals, both Therians* and Monotremes), most of the larger Mesozoic mammals were members of the 2 more primitive (and now extinct) branches of true mammals, Multituberculates and Docodonts.

*Therians = Marsupials and Placentals

	14-01-2005 00:12									#312
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Odin Only ONE was fake, the rest are perfectly authentic.

Oh good. That does settle the issue then.

quote: There was a ID person on the BBC last night (We get the BBC on NPR at night) making all sorts of stupid claims, like saying cell structure can't be explained by evolution, and when the journalist asked him to elaborate he completely ducked the question. I WANT EVIDICE FROM YOU CREATIONIST FOOLS, NOT BS.

I dont think there are any creationists here. Lets not entice them.

quote: SpencerH, most Mesozoic mammals WERE shrew to rat size, and hence too small to eat dino hatchlings, there were a few, like this one, that were larger, but they were rare. This does suprise me that this was a triconodont (a member of the group of mostly tiny Mesozoic mammals ancestral to living mammals, both Therians* and Monotremes), most of the larger Mesozoic mammals were members of the 2 more primitive (and now extinct) branches of true mammals, Multituberculates and Docodonts. *Therians = Marsupials and Placentals

What you mean is no-one has found a fossil of a larger mammal until now. Maybe next week there will be an even larger mammal discovered and the week after that and the week after that. Its the nature of paleontology.

	14-01-2005 00:18									#313
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH What you mean is no-one has found a fossil of a larger mammal until now. Maybe next week there will be an even larger mammal discovered and the week after that and the week after that. Its the nature of paleontology.

Maybe. Note, however, that bigger animals are tendentially better representated in the fossile record, so if we've got plenty of fossiles of small ones and only one or so big ones, it fairly strongly suggests most were indeed small.

	14-01-2005 00:31									#314
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist Maybe. Note, however, that bigger animals are tendentially better representated in the fossile record, so if we've got plenty of fossiles of small ones and only one or so big ones, it fairly strongly suggests most were indeed small.

Sounds reasonable but given the bajillions of critters that have existed and the numbers of fossils I'd say that the population sample is rather small.

	14-01-2005 00:58									#315
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH We have one fossil of one mammal with one small dinosaur in its belly and paleontology is rocked (no pun intended) by the discovery! How pathetic.

This is a gross exaggeration of the effect of the discovery. You seem prone to making these hyperbolic claims.

Paleontology hasn't been "rocked" by this discovery. It is certainly an exciting and unexpected find, but it no way shakes or undermines the science involved. It's new evidence that requires a modification to an existing hypothesis. This happens in science all the time, doesn't it? Isn't that the very nature of science?

I will add that this issue is pretty minor wrt paleontology as a whole. Hypotheses about the specific nature of early mammals isn't exactly the only thing paleontology has going for it, you know.

quote: Is there any evidence to support the existing theory that mammals were only prey for dinosaurs? No! It's an assumption based on relative sizes.

There was no evidence supporting otherwise. It wasn't a "theory" that mammals were such--you're again conflating theory with hypothesis. It was hypothesized, based on the evidence at hand, that mammals were confined in the early mesozoic era to very small rodents. Why should scientists assume larger carniverous ones existed then when there wasn't any evidence supporting them?

Oy, first you claim there's not enough evidence to support things, now you're whining that they didn't assume something even though there was no evidence for it. Will you make up your mind?

quote: Why is it so surprising to find a large-dog sized mammal that has eaten a small dinosaur? It seems very likely to me that small carnivorous mammals living in those times preyed upon anything they could catch, just as modern mammals do.

There wasn't any evidence to support it until now, so why should they just assume so? Do you have any evidence that the above scenario had been completely ruled out of possibility by the paleontological community? It was the prevailing thought, but no one would have said it was impossible.

quote: Hopefully its not another chinese hoax (like the missing-link between birds and reptiles).

Unlikely, since, as the article mentions, it has been 2 years since discovery and has been vetted to different experts who achieved a consensus.

I'll note that paleontology has been quite adept at weeding out hoaxes, as the Chinese bird-reptile fossil incident shows. In fact, despite Creationists pointing to such hoaxes as a sign of the weakness of the science, they are in fact a sign of its strength, since it was paleontology that determined they were hoaxes in the first place.

quote: I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I expect changes to hypothesis that hit closer and closer to the 'truth' as the evidence mounts not repeated wholesale reversals of established 'theory'.

And, as I mentioned, this has not amounted in any such reversal of any theory, merely the revision of hypothesis. You again exaggerate and engage in unfounded hyperbole. Perhaps you could write for the AP, for your grasp of the situation seems akin to the reporters. It certain is indicative that you don't know much about paleontology.

	14-01-2005 01:08									#316
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What species of dinosaur was it?

	14-01-2005 03:07									#317
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov If you all had clarified terms from the get-go, this whole frickin' retarded conversation wouldn't have happened, you know. This is a prime example of 'Poly intellectual masterbation at its finest. Let's use these terms: Function Intent Purpose Let's NOT use them interchangeably. Apples have a function. That function is to protect the seeds of a tree to help ensure propagation. There is no intent behind that function, as to have intent requires consciousness. Apples do not possess consciousness, so there is no intent. To have a purpose is to have a function with intent behind it. Ergo apples have no purpose, as there is no intent to their functions. How about a knife? A knife has a function. It's to cut things or be utilized as a tool. It has no intent, since a knife has no consciousness. Function but no intent, so no purpose. Sexual organs have a function, to reproduce humans. They have no intent (although sometimes my penis seems as if it does). So function but no intent means sex organs have no purpose. Now, an apple, a knife and sex organs can all serve a purpose, but that is not the same as having a purpose.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to describe the purpose of an object as the sum of intents held towards that object by intelligent agents. Otherwise there's no real difference between the two words.

	14-01-2005 03:11									#318
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd I don't know if you could attribute a purpose to rain, because it's not an actual object - it's an action. It's water falling from the sky.

Water falling from the sky is an object, which happens to be performing a particular action. Way to miss the point

quote: But gravity, does have a purpose. It binds and draws mass together, and in that sense, it's purpose is to keep the earth near the sun - not specifically, of course, because that is simply one example, or result of it's function.

That's absolutely retarded.

quote: What is intent but a reason - a reason to exist, a reason for being?

It's not a mechanical reason, the answer to "how", it's the answer to "why". Otherwise, the "intent" behind everything is simply that it is a result of the operation of physical laws on some initial configuration.

	14-01-2005 07:13									#319
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I disagree. I think it's perfectly fine to describe the purpose of an object as the sum of intents held towards that object by intelligent agents. Otherwise there's no real difference between the two words.

That's not true.

The function of a knife is to cut things, but these things can be pieces of meat or another person. How it is used entirely depends on the person in control of said knife.

	14-01-2005 07:15									#320
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc What species of dinosaur was it?

Some small herbivore dinosaur that had some bird-like features.

Here's the thread on this particular discovery

	14-01-2005 07:27									#321
	Support Apolyton

Update from the county in Atlanta that adopted the disclaimers last year: They're outta there!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...lution_stickers

quote: Ga. Evolution Stickers Ordered Removed 31 minutes ago By DOUG GROSS, Associated Press Writer ATLANTA - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution "a theory, not a fact," saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. "By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories," U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper said. The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered." "This is a great day for Cobb County students," said Michael Manely, an attorney for the parents who sued over the stickers. "They're going to be permitted to learn science unadulterated by religious dogma." In a statement, the school board said it was disappointed by the ruling and will decide whether to appeal. A board spokesman said no decision had been made on when, or if, the stickers would be removed. "The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers," the board said. The stickers were added after more than 2,000 parents complained that the textbooks presented evolution as fact, without mentioning rival ideas about the beginnings of life, such as the biblical story of creation. Six parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) then sued, contending the disclaimers violated the separation of church and state and unfairly singled out evolution from thousands of other scientific theories as suspect. At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism. "Science and religion are related and they're not mutually exclusive," school district attorney Linwood Gunn said. "This sticker was an effort to get past that conflict and to teach good science." But the judge disagreed: "While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community." The case is one of several battles waged around the country in recent years over what role evolution should play in the teaching of science. Last year, Georgia's education chief proposed a science curriculum that dropped the word "evolution" in favor of "changes over time." The idea was dropped amid protests from teachers. A school district in Dover, Pa., has been locked in a dispute over a requirement that science students be told about "intelligent design" — the concept that the universe is so complex it must have been created by some higher power. Officials in Alabama said they do not think Thursday's ruling affects the several-paragraph evolution disclaimer in the front of that state's science books. The disclaimer says that "any statement about life's origins should be considered theory, not fact," and lists four of the "many unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook." One of the questions is, "How did you and all living things come to possess such a complete and complex set of 'Instructions' for building a living body?"

	14-01-2005 07:31									#322
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's not true. The function of a knife is to cut things, but these things can be pieces of meat or another person. How it is used entirely depends on the person in control of said knife.

I said no difference between purpose and intent, not purpose and function. My use of purpose makes a distinction between purpose and intent - intent is held by intelligent actors, purpose is an extrinsic property of objects (including intelligent actors).

	14-01-2005 07:41									#323
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Removing stickers

	14-01-2005 07:51									#324
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: "The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers," the board said.

Creationists aren't ALLOWED to talk about critical thought.

	14-01-2005 07:52									#325
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yup. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to stupid people.

	14-01-2005 08:28									#327
	Tired of ads?

Boris

quote: That apples can be eaten is a happy consequence of millions of years of coevolution between apple trees and things that eat apples. It works as a defense, as it ensures the seeds get spread and planted, since the fruit is what gets eaten, not the seeds.

The seeds are eaten, thats why apples exist.

quote: No, it only assumes that non-conscious objects do not have an intent, as they can't "intend" to do anything.

With ID the intent for all life, including us, lies with the designer.

quote: You're mixing the terms, conflating "purpose" and "function." If you use the word "purpose" to mean "function," it loses its meaning in this debate, because the entire debate is whether or not inanimate/unconscious objects possess some intrinsic meaning beyond their function

To answer that we'd have to know if ID is responsible for the universe. If there is a design with a designer, our "consciousness" does not create intent. We do know there is a design, so what intrinsic meaning do we have beyond our function within that design?

quote: Even if an intelligence created an item, the item does not possess an intent, but rather it serves an intent.

So how can we assume human beings are beyond serving this intent? This sounds almost like a free will/determinism discussion, dont it?

	14-01-2005 08:52									#328
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: "The textbook stickers are a reasonable and evenhanded guide to science instruction and encouraging students to be critical thinkers," the board said. Creationists aren't ALLOWED to talk about critical thought.

They can talk about it all right, they just don't apply it themselves.

	14-01-2005 09:04									#329
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH We have one fossil of one mammal with one small dinosaur in its belly and paleontology is rocked (no pun intended) by the discovery! How pathetic

How was Paleontology rocked? It seems like wishful thinking by anti-evolution types. Seriously, all they said before was that based upon the evidence we've seen all the mammals we know of from 70m years ago were about the size of a rodent. One new species is found which was a meat eater and it is supposed to be revolutionary? Not at all. I'm sure as time goes on more species will be discovered and we will continue to learn more.

This is part of the scientific process. Truth is arrived at slowly though a lot of thinking and hard work.

	14-01-2005 09:18									#330
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Arrian Scientists are certainly not immune to hype, either.

If you are a young PHD candidate looking for a tentured position then you want to hype any discovery you make other wise you might not get that tenure track job you were hoping for.