Has Natural Selection Met Its Match?

[ScabbyDouglas]

Tom...

I have no reason to doubt your assertion that you possess photographs that depict things that cannot be explained by materialism. However since you not only haven't displayed them, you haven't even described them, I can't give any weight to them as evidence. Sorry. I am sure that if I said to you : "actually, I have documents that prove conclusively that mankind possesses too much intelligence - but I can't tell you the nature of these documents nor can I show them to you", that you would be sceptical, to say the least.


You accuse me of being unduly technical. No, not really.

One statement says baldly that animals are psychic.
The other simply says some animals can do stuff that we can't leading some people to call them psychic.
The difference between these two statements is not the degree of "technicality", but the conclusions reached.

Relationships in nature cannot be 'explained away' by Darwinism. No one has bothered to say HOW one species can communicate with another species, perfectly, and in a fraction of a second.

No - and no-one has been able, either, to demonstrate that such communication does, actually happen in reality. And if something doesn't exist, then it doesn't need explanation.

back to the birds: and the ones in the front could not see the ones behind. maybe - but I bet they could hear them.

And I have no wish to disparage your powers of observation, but while might be fine for you to say: "I could not understand how they might be communicating, nor could I detect any single bird moving alone" - I can accept that you (or I ) might be unable to detect such a thing, but I'd be willing to bet that if the flight of the flock were filmed, then played back in slo-mo that you would see the individual flock members in motion, and how it spreads from one point to the rest. And please, if you can have unsubstantiated photos, I can have imaginary slo-mo film.


You actually tried to say that cats 'know' when we come home by a combination of lights and sounds: that is complete nonsense.
that is such a belter.. Nonsense?
Nonsense?
- are you telling me that where you live the sun stays in one position in the sky the whole day? That the noise of traffic in any one place is constant no matter what time of day it is? That in any neighbourhood, certain background sounds are not indicators of time of day?

Example: If I'm lying upstairs in bed, and hear a car engine outside, footsteps approachin the front door, clattering noise at the front door, and then a thump as of stuff hitting a floor, I associate that with a newspaper lying on the floor. Now even if I have never seen outside the door, and cannot imagine what the significance of the sounds is, even if I do not have the faintest concept of "car", nor what a newspaper is for, I still associate over time, the occurrence of A) noises with B) newspaper.

I take it you have heard about Pavlov?

I put it to you that the cat is an affectionate animal. It appreciates the attention that is lavished on it when the owner returns. Owner-Returning is associated with Being-Made-A-Fuss-Of. Sunlight-Being-Specific-Strength and Sound-of-More-Traffic is associated with Owner-Returning.
Cat sits in window and waits to see Owner-Returning.

OR

Like the cat in house next door to mine, it sits in the window the whole day when the owners are out. It gets the sunshine, and can get visual stimulation from what's going on outside. When owners at home, cat never sits in window.
Nonsense? Hah!


Yours sincerely...

[ScabbyDouglas]

It's the weekend, so I'm not replying at length at present.


However....

... I have at no point suggested your cat can smell the car.

And also... if you want to keep on referring to evidence that you have no intention of producing, you'll just have to put up with me keeping on refusing to lend any weight whatsoever to it. Sorry.

And I at no time used the word "relationship" - see when it says "Andy_J2" that's Andy, and when it says "Scabby Douglas" that's me.

But I bet that the bears don't chase gulls for the simple reason that they learn (while cubs) that they are unlikely to catch one. In fact I'm sure I saw that on a Walt Disney Wildlife film one time. In fact, I may even have a copy of it..

Are you seriously telling me that you think that even a "busy" street has the same amount of traffic all day long? And that while a cat may have no idea what "traffic" is, that it can't tell when it is noisy outside and when it is quieter?

Why don't I credit the idea of telepathy? Becaue we don't need to invent a mysterious unprovable, undemonstrable form of communication to explain this phenomenon. Simpler theories, much simpler explanations exist. Occam's razor again.

I'll see you Monday.

[HollyElise]

I am a photographer and run a co-operative photography lab for hundreds of people a year. They regularly come to me with their photos, asking why "such & such" happened in their photo. In most cases i can tell them what happenned, in terms of exposure and chemical processing.

Since the beginning of photography people have mistaken photography for truth. Even when it is not manipulated by someone deliberately, there are all manner of things that can go wrong during exposure and development that to most people are inexplicable. You can get ghostlike abberitions, shadows, additional images, strange coloring, in black and white film some objects can go all black or all white, there can be textures or air bells, fogging, and that's just for starters. It's almost infinite what can go wrong.

Have you ruled out x-ray exposure, light leakages in the camera, film can, or processing, fingerprints, bad chemistry, dirty camera lens, dirty enlarger lens, dirty felts on the film can or in the camera, irregular aggitation, the film touching another part of the film during processing, double exposures, film that picks up non-visible light? To name just a few!

One of my best photographs has a ghostly appearance of a hand over my face. There were 30 eyewitnesses that can say that there was no hand on my face at the time of exposure and no mirrors or projectors present, and experts can tell you the negative was not manipulated, and yet it is there on the negative, a hand erily on my face. I've had professional photographers ask me again and again how i did it. It was accidental. I figured out how it happened though and when i've told it to photographers they agree it makes perfect sense. A reflection had happened on an inside surface of the camera, bouncing a duplicate of my hand, in reverse, onto the film, coincidentally over my face. The chances of it happening are extremely rare, and then only when using a penlight for illumination, as i was.

I'm seeing a pattern in Tom's arguments. He is attached to a certain conclusion... paranormality. Any time he can not explain an observation, he assumes the absence of other obvious explanation proves it's paranormal, rather than it is yet to be explained.

History is chocked full of such beliefs that have fallen by the wayside once new evidence or explanations were found. We once thought the earth was flat. Then we thought that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the earth. All sorts of beliefs seemed plausable for a time. Until evidence is found one way or another, paranormality is a possible explanation for some of these strange things. But that is "POSSIBLE," which is very different from proven.

Paranormal occurances can't be proven through a process of elimination in uncontrolled conditions outside of a lab. There are just far too many factors involved in these situations, and it is clear that we do not yet have a complete understanding of our physical reality as yet (our understanding of animal communication and behavior continues to develop, for example. Only recently have we come to understand that bees have a rather sophisticated language in the form of "dancing").

Tom, you might wish to take a look at the television series Arthur C. Clarke did investigating various paranormal phenomena. He may have some written work on the subject as well, i don't know. I remember the series... it was quite fascinating, and he would conclude each article with his opinion of whether each phenomena was bogus, unlikely, possible, he didn't know, he thought there was something to it, or it was definitely true, and WHY, from a scientific point of view. They are very entertaining and i think you will find his methods of investigation enlightening.

[CreepingJesus]

I hate posting links but this horrible board won't accept images except in a signature.

Here's some ghost photos.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9607/ghost.htm

______________________________________________

And a quote from "Skepdic.com" on your Bermuda thing.

"Over the years there have been dozens of articles, books, and television programs promoting the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle. In his study of this material, Larry Kushe found that few did any investigation into the mystery. Rather, they passed on the speculations of their predecessors as if they were passing on the mantle of truth. Of the many uncritical accounts of the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle, perhaps no one has done more to create this myth than Charles Berlitz, who had a bestseller on the subject in 1974.

After examining the 400+ page official report of the Navy Board of Investigation of the disappearance of the Navy planes in 1945, Kushe found that the Board wasn't baffled at all by the incident and did not mention alleged radio transmissions cited by Berlitz in his book. According to Kushe, what isn't misinterpreted by Berlitz is fabricated. Kushe writes: "If Berlitz were to report that a boat were red, the chance of it being some other color is almost a certainty." (Berlitz, by the way, did not invent the name; that was done by Vincent Gaddis in "The Deadly Bermuda Triangle," which appeared in the February, 1964, issue of Argosy, a magazine devoted to fiction.)

In short, the mystery of the Bermuda Triangle became a mystery by a kind of communal reinforcement among uncritical authors and a willing mass media to uncritically pass on the speculation that something mysterious is going on in the Atlantic."

____________________________________________________

And from http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq8-3.htm

"What it all adds up to is that the majority of the supernatural happenings offered as explanations for the Devil's Triangle mysteries amount to a voluminous mass of sheer hokum, extrapolated to the nth degree.


Mysteries associated with the sea are plentiful in the history of mankind. The triangle area happens to be one of the most heavily traveled regions in the world and the greater the number of ships or planes, the greater the odds that something will happen to some.


Each holiday season the National Safety Council warns motorists by predicting how many will die on the nation's highways. They are usually quite accurate, but, no monsters kill people on highways, only mistakes.


Seafarers and aircraft pilots also make mistakes. Eventually scientists will separate fact from the fiction concerning the Devil's Triangle. Until then, we can only grin and bear the ministrations of madness offered by triangle cultists."

A quick search of the net for "Bermuda triangle debunked" will find a host of critical analyses of the various books on the subject which have been written to make a quick buck from the gullible.

None of these analyses are kind.

Perhaps something as widely ridiculed and easily dismissed as nonsense was a bad example.

____________________________________

Perhaps you should try Poltgergeists.

I encountered one myself years ago. It moved a tv set in a friend's house.

The friend owned ouiji boards and Tarot cards and many many books on the paranormal.

And a rocking floorboard which moved the TV set when someone stepped on it.

My friend was quite upset when I pointed this out, because she'd spent a fortune on books about poltergeists, and had been considering an exorcism.


From http://www.skepdic.com

"Many people report physical changes in haunted places, especially a feeling of a presence accompanied by temperature drop and hearing unaccountable sounds. They are not imagining things. Most hauntings occur in old buildings, which tend to be drafty. Scientists who have investigated haunted places account for both the temperature changes and the sounds by finding sources of the drafts, such as empty spaces behind walls or currents set in motion by low frequency sound waves produced by such mundane objects as an extraction fan."

(Please forgive the pasted references I've used for illustration here. It saves a lot of typing, and although these comments may have been lifted from elsewhere, I do agree entirely with them.)

[ScabbyDouglas]

It's Monday... on the whole, I'd rather be in France...

OK, where are we?

oh yeah... heading off-road with a vengeance.

Scabby has said that my accusation of there being a 'gang' mentality is entirely misplace and possibly even paranoid thinking. Has Scabby not been paying attention?

Tom, you and I were conversing. Other people came along and joined in. I do not have the right, nor the power to restrict our discussion so that only you and I can participate. Even if I could do that I wouldn't. It's a discussion forum. It's what it's for.

Actually there isn't a "gang". As you pointed out, you've crossed swords (well, keyboards...) with many of the active posters in these forums before now. Some of those exchanges were acrimonious, to say the least... but this latest one has, by previous standards, been fairly (although not completely) well-mannered. What is true is that based on earlier discussions, I know that we (you and I) do not have a lot of opinions in common. Which is a good starting point for a conversation. Now it's not essential to have disagreement as a basis for discussion, but they're the most interesting conversations to have. And when a conversation is stimulating, other people are inclined to join in. You may wish that more people shared your point of view, but apparently they don't. That's no reason to assume that people are ganging up on you.

You guys like to say that Hitler was evil for making a scapegoat of the Jews - and yes, he was evil - but when other people do it, on a smaller scale, you ignore it.

Nothing about this situation is comparable to the persecution of Jews under Nazi Germany. To make such an analogy is not only fatuous, but frankly, also offensive. You come in here of your own free will. You are at liberty to come and go as you please. And before you utter any knee-jerk defence of your statement, I would ask you to re-evaluate it. It is a spurious comparison, and it worries me that you can adopt it as an argument so easily.

There were times, of course, where I was at fault for being apprehensive and on occasion rude

Yes, there certainly were quite a few times when you were rude, I don't know what the "apprehensive" has to do with that.

...and people started new threads to make fun of my complaints.
Absolutely shocking. Quite childish, really. Those people should know better.


Tom, I begin to suspect that you may use this technique whenever you bore of the discussion or feel that you are on shaky ground. Accuse your "opposition" of persecuting you, rant about the moderators, etc, etc. I may of course, be mistaken. I can only judge on what I see..

You are correct. It would be irrational in the extreme for people to diagree with *everything* that you say and do. So just to prove that I'm not as irrational as you suspect, let me say that I do agree with you about at least one thing. I know, I know, just take a moment, get your breath back. Here it is - in another thread, you're discussing stuff with Feartie, and you say:

"Sex is a choice, between two people: its none of the Church's business. "

Now. Here it comes. I agree with you.
No argument.
None. (Other people may take issue wth the number "two", but it's OK with me.)

Now I'm sure there may be other things that we agree on. We may even be able to agree on what colour a blue hat is. Although, that may be hoping for too much, I suppose.

Facts are facts, whether we like them or not.
There's a great Scots expreession that states: "Facts are chiels that winna ding". Means the same thing. However, an opinion is still only an opinion.

Fairies - there's an interesting thread on Fairies in the History forum. I use the word "interesting" in the same way that one might describe finding a freshly-bitten half of an earthworm in a chicken sandwich as "interesting". While intending no disrespect towards the Fairies Theorists who have posted to that thread, I'd have to ask you... is that *really* the sort of company you want to be keeping?

So, if you want to keep posting, then do so. If you don't, then don't. My day will be neither enhanced nor spoiled either way. If this persecution you describe were quite as bad as you suggest, then I wonder why you would be inclined to return repeatedly. What reason would one have for coninually re-exposing oneself to ridicule, and abuse? Why would one seek out that pain? Must be some reason..

Now, that was mostly off-topic...

Shall we get back on-topic?

[CreepingJesus]

Why don't bears attack seagulls?

They probably do - once.

Seagulls are big birds with sharp beaks which exhibit mobbing behaviour when one of their number is attacked. Although bears are carnivorous as part of their diet, they won't get into a fight and risk damage for fun, that's a human idiosyncracy.

There is also the possibility that seagulls taste horrtible which seems likely given their diet and, (potentially lethal to an unadapted predator), heavy concentrations of vitamin A in their livers (from eating lots of fish).

In nature something tasting bad is a warning of an unsuitable food item.

You don't need telepathy for any of that.

[CreepingJesus]

Startled birds leaving in a bunch:

All you need is one bird to spot a danger and the whole flock's in the air.

Flocking birds have pretty well 360 degree vision. - Eyes on the side of the head. (compare the front-mounted eyes of owls and other predators which need binocular vision for asccurate targetting)

This is an evolutionary advantage because it is a survival device.

It lets the bird look out for predators and the bird can also detect the warning signals of other individuals taking flight.

It is also a navigational aid - stops mid air collisions.

And yes 360 degrees means they can see the birds behind them too.

No telepathy required.

It's that simple.