Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Abstinence Only Sex Ed: 65 out of 490 Girls Pregnant in Ohio School

Expand Messages
  • Dave Land
    ... Amen, brother! Like when they killed that Jewish reformer in Jerusalem a couple of thousand years ago. His lot went underground and nobody ever heard from
    Message 1 of 112 , Aug 31, 2005
      On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:48 AM, William T Goodall wrote:

      > On 31 Aug 2005, at 3:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:
      >
      >> William wrote:
      >>
      >>> Most of all it needs to be banned.
      >>
      >> Banning it is the best way to ensure that it flourishes.
      >
      > It would drive it underground. The number of people infected would
      > be reduced and its influence in public affairs mostly silenced.
      > Whether it would then wither away naturally or have to be rooted
      > out is hard to judge.

      Amen, brother!

      Like when they killed that Jewish reformer in Jerusalem a couple of
      thousand years ago. His lot went underground and nobody ever heard
      from them again.

      No, actually, a couple of generations later, a bunch of them turned
      up in Rome. Thankfully, that nice boy Nero did us all a favor by
      burning them as torches along his way and fed a bunch of 'em to
      lions. That sure shut them up, eh?

      Sheesh. Do you EVER think before you write?

      Dave
      _______________________________________________
      http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
    • Dan Minette
      ... From: Robert J. Chassell To: Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Brave New Genetic
      Message 112 of 112 , Oct 10, 2005
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@...>
        To: <brin-l@...>
        Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:58 PM
        Subject: Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers


        > > Off hand, I cannot think of a shorter sentence that includes all
        those
        > > concepts.
        > >
        > > It would be great if someone else can.
        >
        > To which Dan Minette said
        >
        > I think the question can be expressed.
        >
        > Is the natural tendency for a population to disperse in gene space
        > through random mutations (in the absence of a natural selection
        > induced focus in gene space) sufficient to explain the existence
        > of blind cave fish.
        >
        > That is an interesting way to ask the question. It certainly focuses
        > attention on populations over time. But why talk about a case which
        > specifies the `absence of a natural selection induced focus in gene
        > space'?

        Because I think that's what is happening. From what I've read in this
        thread, the blindness is not the result of the eye structure totally
        disappearing, but the result of a key component disappearing. Thus, the
        advantage in efficiency afforded by this small change should not be a key
        factor in it's existance. If it were, wouldn't the advantage of
        eliminating the rest of they eye cause those parts to disappear too.

        Rather, I think one can look at the genetic tendencies to blindness that
        exists in humans now. They are rare for good reason: until very recently
        (compared to the time needed for genetic changes) blind people didn't get
        to pass their genes along. Blind lions, blind deer, etc. are at such a
        disadvantage, we do not expect them to be able to pass their genes along.
        But, in a cave, blind fish can pass their genes along. With the
        elimination of the pruning of the blind, blind cave fish developed.

        > It is like talking about one of Newton's laws
        >
        > "force is the product of mass and acceleration"
        >
        > while overtly leaving out the concept of mass.

        Actually, it's like talking about the path of a rock wirled around on a
        string after the string breaks while overtly leaving out centripital force.

        > The answer to your question has to be: to get blind fish without
        > selection is improbable.

        Why? Why can't genetic drift explain the process?

        Dan M.

        _______________________________________________
        http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.