I had a bad experience at my first and only encounter with OSC.
He came to speak at my mom's writer's club meeting back in 1998, and my mom, knowing that I was an OSC fan, invited me to attend.
In addition to speaking about developing sci-fi and fantasy stories, he spoke about the importance of the writer being honest with his audience.
Indeed, Card's honesty has been a main attraction for me. But it always bothered me that Card's sci-fi writing sometimes includes intelligent non-human characters. I can take that from the likes of Larry Niven, but knowing that Card is LDS, I would expect all his intelligent creatures to be human.
Anyway, I got a chance to ask him my question: "if a writer doesn't personally believe in the possible existence of intelligent non-humans, would it be dishonest to include such characters in his stories?"
The guy turned bright red and exploded!
I don't remember a word of what he said because I was busy looking for a rock to crawl under. His ranting seemed to go on forever.
He writes good stuff, but we'd never be friends.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Somehow I have trouble imagining him "exploding" at a question worded exactly the way you're describing. I suspect that either you misinterpreted his tone, or you asked the question in a way that sounded more like, "If you're a Mormon and you write about aliens, that means you're a liar, doesn't it?"
And besides, there's not much in Mormon scripture to address the appearance of possible extraterrestrial life. Some Mormons see it one way, and others see it another, so the premise of your question is a little flawed.
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:I can take that from the likes of Larry Niven, but knowing that Card is LDS, I would expect all his intelligent creatures to be human.
I thought a main point of the LDS religion was that they believed intelligent life outside the Earth was possible. Or, at least, I heard that they believe that the greatest responsibility you can have when you die is to become a god of a different planet (coming in just after the highest level of heaven). Is that true? And if it is, it would seem strange to me - although not completely impossible - that none of the spirits that inherited the planets would make intelligent life on their own planet.
Am I wrong? Can somebody please fill me in on this? I suppose that belief could have changed by now, but I'm sure that that was a belief when my grandparents were LDS (mind you, this was back before the 70's).
Anyway, this article that the front page has pointed to for a year or so seems to make it clear that Science Fiction - including life on other planets - and Mormonism go hand in hand.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Skillery I really don't think you should take that outburst personally.
Maybe that is the millionth time someone has asked him that question and he just got tired of answering it.
The first time I saw OSC was at a book signing in Century City, California. This one guy brought in close to 30 books for OSC to sign, and he wanted all of them personalized! Most of the people in line only had two or three books, and it was a freaking long line. But OSC just smiled politely and signed the 30 books. He also made an effort to chat with the people in line who were obviously getting impatient.
So I guess my encounter with OSC is different from yours, and I hope you will give him another chance and go see him in person again when you have the chance. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I might have said: "if YOU don't personally believe..."
I think his rant was not along the lines of defending himself for being called a liar, but rather, for my being an idiot for not understanding that he meant that we should be honest as far as THEME and the main points of our story. I know now that anything goes in sci-fi/fantasy when it comes to plot elements.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Beren, you don't happen to remember if that guy was wearing a cowboy hat and boots, do you? If he was, it was his second time through the line, after having only three books signed his first time through, so everyone waiting behind him was very late to arrive. But I'm sorry anyway. And it was more like 40 books, though that's not so important, right?
--Pop
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
A friend would take more than a few minutes of waiting in line.
I have had dinner with him and his lovely wife and found them very nice people that I am pretty sure I could be friends with.
msquared
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Da_Goat: I thought a main point of the LDS religion was that they believed intelligent life outside the Earth was possible.
Yes, but there are limitations:
-Man was created in God's image.
-Woman is the pinnacle of God's creation (not buggers or bi-pedal tigers)
-Visitations from extraterrestrials limited to 3 types of beings: resurrected humans, non-resurrected humans, humans that were never born.
And then there is the possibility that animals and humans could at one time communicate with each other and may again someday. That idea grants all animals a certain degree of intelligence.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That was you? Hi Pop!
I don't think it was you though. This guy did not say anything to OSC, he just brought in a bag of books and asked for his signature. That's what bothered me about it, the fact that he just wanted the signature and did not have anything to say to OSC. Made me wonder if he was going to ebay the books as soon as he stepped out of Brentanos. Given your post count, I doubt you would've remained silent during the book signing. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Yes, but there are limitations: -Man was created in God's image. -Woman is the pinnacle of God's creation (not buggers or bi-pedal tigers) -Visitations from extraterrestrials limited to 3 types of beings: resurrected humans, non-resurrected humans, humans that were never born.
Humans that have not been born yet can look a lot like aliens. Something weird my mom proposed once.
I don't think the limitations as listed are scriptural. Woman was the crowning creation of the Earth.
I think it is a not altogether far out idea (in LDS cosmology) that there are other worlds without number also inhabited by our spiritual generation, for whom Jesus died. These also have free will, and if someone developed space flight they could conceivably visit us. Again, some info from the Pearl of Great Price as interpreted by my mom.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
No, that'd definitely not be me. Also, I'm referring to a tour in 1999, and the signing wasn't at Brentano's. You were at the one this past November? I almost went, but we were only days from Superstation's due-date, and I couldn't chance missing that. Docmagic picked up a copy of The Crystal City for me at the Pasadena signing, though, and had it personalized to my not-yet-born son -- it's going in his baby-time-capsule thing.
--Pop
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
skillery, I think you're imposing unnecessary limits on the possibilities. Does it say somewhere that all intelligent life is created in God's image? Or that all intelligent life is integral to the same precise implementation of the plan of salvation that human life on earth is?
My only point is, it's possible for someone to be a Mormon and not look at the potential for extraterrestrial life the same way you do.
Though this is beside Card's point, from the way you clarified it. He may have thought it was obvious that the "truth" of a fictional story was limited to its moral implications, and not to the facts. I mean, sure, he might not believe there actually are buggers out there. But he also doesn't believe there is a real person named Ender who will save us from their invasion a few centuries from now. The purpose of a fictional story is to experience something that isn't real, yet has some of the emotional and moral impacts of reality.
So he may have thought you were quibbling with him in a semi-accusatory way, and been quick to qush your comment. But I doubt he meant any harm by it. In fact, I can almost guarantee he kicked himself on the way home if it looked like he made you feel bad ...
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
He did sign my copy of Homebody afterward, but he still seemed a bit agitated.
After reading 20 or so of his books, I thought I would see eye to eye with this guy when I finally got to meet him. He shows up in a Nehru jacket, projecting a sagacious persona. Maybe that was for the benefit of the adoring author-ladies.
[ February 26, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
**looks around wildly, trying to find where skillery's last comment came from**
**shrug**
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
He wasn't what I expected. He weren't no home-grown Mormon boy from the sticks with his poke thrown over his shoulder.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
"Mormon boy from the sticks"
Are you picking a fight because your initial point was disproven?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
OSC was smart as a whip, and he scared the heck out of me when he got wound up.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Eh, he didn't explode but he did think my question about affirmative action in Battle School was not intelligent. That was at EnderCon. He wore a polynesian shirt there. The same one, both days. (I don't actually remember, I'm kidding.) But I still like him.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
My first signing experience with OSC concluded with myself and a few others taken out and treated to dinner, and then taken to a separate Ice Cream joint (Cold Stone!) and treated for Ice Cream! He even went out of his way to up a fellow who had travelled a particularly long distance for the signing in a hotel.
My already high respect for the guy quintupled that night.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
picking a fight?
I'm the "Mormon boy from the sticks," and so is Alvin Maker and Nafai from the Homecoming series. I thought for sure Card would be too.
initial point was disproven?
The ladies from my mom's writer's club all gathered around after the meeting and wanted to know why my question had set Card off. We all concluded that he must have been having a bad day. Later we found out that there had been a death in the Card family.
I guess I should give the guy another chance, but he surely put the fear in me.
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
There they are, I knew there were more details in this arguement than I knew.
That clears a lot of things up.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
So you were wondering why I would expect anything but a sage in a Nehru jacket?
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
What I saw was you throwing a stereotype out in an attempt to up the anty.
But, if it was intraspective, my take on it was all wrong.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
To the original question, yes. In my copy of The Crystal City he wrote:
I've never met the man, but if I did then we'd be slight acquaintances.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Are you trying to tell us in your sly, understated way that you've lost weight, Dobbie? I think so. All that Dr. Phil you watch has really paid off.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
OSC brought chocolate to the Portland signing. For everyone. He passed it around while he mingled with everyone before the signing officially started. He also brought those of us with more than 2 or three books up to have them signed before he spoke so that the rest of the line wouldn't have to wait forever. It was truly sweet of him.
If that isn't evidence that he's friendly, then the fact that his wife is one of the sweetest people known to man should be. She's so nice that she just COULDN'T be married to a condescending unfriendly person. (sorry, I couldn't think of more descriptors at the moment.)
There. That's my 2 cents.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Well, it's so lovely to invite people into your living room and have them say such charming things about you Why do we keep doing this I ask myself? But at least I now know without a doubt that skillery is probably at least exaggerating if not making the whole thing up. Scott has NEVER owned a Nehru jacket in his life!
[ February 26, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I'll have to check my journal.
He had on white pants and a white jacket. Or maybe it was a long shirt, but it wasn't tucked in. And it had a Nehru-style, or maybe a Chinese-style collar.
And I was wrong about the book signing. It was Stone Tables.
I think Scott was here in Utah for the funeral of a family member at the time.
And I'm sorry about the mess on the living room floor.
He still writes good stuff.
[ February 26, 2004, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: skillery ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Well, did I pass the initiation?
I've thought about joining the forum in the past, but when OSC wrote about the online community in the acknowledgements in C.C., about Moose and Squirrel and all that, I thought I'd take the plunge. It sounded like you folks were really enjoying yourselves.
I guess newbies have to take some heat.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
*pours skillery into a greased pan, sprinkles grated cheddar on top, and bakes at 325 degrees for an hour or until cheese is browned*
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
*sizzle sizzle*
Posted by The Wiggin (Member # 5020) on :
needs garlic
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
OSC has a lot of charisma. When he feels strongly about something, I can see how it could be intimidating. However, I suggest you weigh OSC's reaction with the rest of the experience you had with him at the writer's group and the circumstances of his being in the area. It is rarely a good idea to judge a man by one encounter.
And I will say that I consider Card to be a friend. Since I am a writer aspiring to be published, I also consider him a mentor whom I greatly admire.
Hatrack is not an exclusive community to be initiated in. No one should feel like they have to reach for something to stir the pot in order to get noticed. Doing something to get you recognized quickly gives one a false sense of having a place in the community they haven't earned yet. You get out of Hatrack just what you put in. You can't have in days what it takes people months and years to get. Getting to know people here, like any other place, takes time.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Amka is my friend Posted by The Wiggin (Member # 5020) on :
*wonders if he can say he has freinds*
[ February 26, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: The Wiggin ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Doing something to get you recognized quickly...
How else are you going to get to know the guy when he's that popular, and you've only got one chance to ask a question?
Are you going to say: "gee Mister Card, I sure do like your latest book?"
And his response to your comment will be: "your comment shows great insight and a genuine desire to be my friend."
I think I'd rather take a chance and stir the pot.
I guess I got what I asked for...a non-standard response.
*spews a noxious cloud of black smoke into the kitchen*
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
I think Amka was referring to Hatrack, not to your encounter with Mr. Card.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
Sitting in bed reading someone's books or lurking on an e-group "gives one a false sense of having a place in the community."
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I would have rated myself no more than a congenial acquaintence, until he hugged me goodbye once and made me blush.
Yes, I consider him a friend.
But I like his wife even more. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
This thread is working for me.
I really want to like this guy.
Thanks.
Posted by Crystal (Member # 5437) on :
I was also at the Portland signing that Narnia is talking about and have met both OSC and Mrs. Card. They were both extremely nice people. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I am really grateful that OSC takes the time to do these book tours. I doubt these tours have any impact on his book sales. I think he just does it for the fans. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
skillery, I'm confused. Are you really saying you'd rather be noticed in a negative, black-smoke spewing manner than not noticed at all? Or better yet, doing your best to be noticed for something positive?
I also don't understand something else. Regardless of what did or did not happen at the meeting (and you seem to indicate, IMO, that you deliberately provoked OSC), as soon as you found out that he had recently suffered a family tragedy, were you not able to dismiss the event as clearly out of character? SIX YEARS later, you're not only still carrying around a grudge, but feel the need to air it in the virtual equivalent of his living room?
Am I missing something here? Because I am having trouble understanding what your goal is in all this. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
rivka, welcome to the Reality TV generation. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Slash is right-- kacard is MUCH more likeable.
Which is pretty astounding, since OSC has charisma out the wazoo. Kacard, though, is welcoming and charming in a way that is completing disarming.
Hail kacard! Matron of impeturbable good sense, and unswaying good humor!
But really-- you LET him go out in Hawaaian shirts? Can you teach Mrs. R the same fashion tolerance?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Beren, point taken. *shudder*
We REALLY need that vomit graemlin.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
In a general sense I wanted to know if Card's religion places any bounds on his writing. I'm sure it does.
Specifically, I thought it would be interesting to know if the LDS religion has limited the kind of creatures that show up in his stories. I would guess that Card wouldn't invent a creature that didn't come under God's control. Those of us who believe in God would be glad that there isn't something out there waiting to swallow us up.
Card doesn't often mention God in his writing, but there is still a sense that his universe has rules...enforced by someone(?).
The provocation of OSC was not intentional. I really wanted to hear what he had to say on the subject.
No TV watching going on here.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Go read "A Storyteller in Zion" for the answer to that question, skillery.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Those of us who believe in God would be glad that there isn't something out there waiting to swallow us up.
That would be. . .
ME.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Skillery...you do know that in writing fiction, every character you create doesn't really exist. Fictio is speculation, and doesn't have to be bound by what you personally believe. That's the biggest problem with your questions. It begins with a wrong assumption.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
Unless you are Captain Sisko, then it's all true.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*high fives Beren* Dude, I like you more every single day. Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
You know what, I don't blame you.
Although I don't have a fan base that asks for me by name in thread titles.... Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Fiction is speculation, and doesn't have to be bound by what you personally believe.
Sure, but what makes Card's fiction so wonderful is that it is bound by his personal beliefs.
I'll have to read A Storyteller in Zion again to see how he gets his beliefs and his fiction to mesh.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I didn't realize I had a fan base. I think they're just using me and my deep love for LotR parodies to get what they want. Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
He workd IDEAS into them. Ideas and concepts can be meshed with completely fictionalized concepts. Do think he actually believes ther exist insectoid aliens wandering around with a Hive Mind? Does that make the Speaker series any less truthful? Of course not. But he uses them to convey IDEAS he believes in.
Ever hear of Metaphor?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
For a little while, when I was first reading some of OSC's fiction, I assumed that he must not be a very good Mormon. I figured there was no way a good Mormon's writing would include so much violence and swearing. I was also bothered by the fact that Ender was baptized Mormon, but he had no real religious beliefs and lived over three thousand years into the future (so much for the "Latter Days" and Second Coming, eh)? I loved Pastwatch, but was bothered by what I saw as an attempt to reconcile religion with history (especially the reference to Noah and the Flood).
But then I read A Storyteller in Zion, and I really got to understand OSC a lot better. I chilled out and realized that they're just books and that not everything in them is a statement of his beliefs. It's possible to write a story just because it's interesting, not because you're trying to tell people your beliefs. In fact, I think interesting stories are much more interesting than belief stories. I've never been even slightly interested in stuff like The Work and the Glory. I actually think it's somewhat tragic that we feel that Mormon fiction has to conform to Mormon beliefs.
But anyway, back to the original question. I don't know OSC well enough to consider him a friend. I've met him in person, and he knew who I was and said that they (he and Kristine) like me, but I don't think that's enough to qualify as a friendship.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Of course you do, Narnia! I, personally, have read you about a half a dozen times.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
no worries, jon. i'm sure if he got to know you he still wouldn't be your friend. just like the rest of us. Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Do you think he actually believes there exist insectoid aliens wandering around with a Hive Mind?
No. But he probably believes that there are groups of HUMANS that have a hive mentality, or at least a herd mentality. Like you said, metaphor.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Right. A mentality, or mindset. That's what you need to look for - the general concepts and ideas - NOT the details.
That's why your original question to him made me want to, well, this:
[ February 27, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Taalcon ]
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
??? That explains Card's reaction too. I had no idea my questions were so irritating.
We've also probably distilled in this discussion the key points in Card's response to my question (although I didn't hear his response at the time).
I should probably reserve such questions for occasions when there is opportunity for give-and-take (and plenty of backpedaling).
So where's Scott Card hiding that white shirt/jacket?
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
It just comes across that it's not as much that you don't understand the way OSC writes, it just seems you don't understand fiction writers in general Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Or just digging for a reaction. Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
*wipes away a tear* I've been read by the grammar nazi and Editor in Chief. Well, at least my screen name has! That should count for something.
So I DO have a fanbase! I was wondering where all the adoring mail was coming from!! Go figure!
back at Shan cause I feel like being silly at midnight.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*giggles*
How are ya, m'dear? Ain't insomnia grand?
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Jon Boy, Ender was baptized Catholic, not Mormon. I think it is mentioned in Ender's Game -- Ender's father (Catholic) baptizes him as an infant, and his mother (Mormon) is not happy about it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Hmm. Yeah, it's been a while since I read Ender's Game. Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
I agree with Jon Boys sentiments from earlier in the postings. I was always a big fantasy reader but I'm sure the first thing of OSCs I read was Enders Game and then heard about the Homecoming series and was really interested (as an LDS) in the idea of a fantasy series based around events which happen in the Book of Mormon.
(but age is wiping out those brain cells so I could have got my order wrong )
Anyway I loved the first three book but imagine my shock horror when in book 4 we meet intelligent creatures on earth that have evolved. Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe. I really had to force myself to finish the series and didn't enjoy it too much. The only reason I did was probably 'cos I'm the type of person who can't leave anything unfinished - oh and reading is like breathing - just gotta do it!
Anyway the point I'm making in my very long drawn out way is that it was only later after much thinking, and also reading the rest of the Ender series, that I realised that hey its only fiction and he's not purporting to teach people about Mormonism. I've never read "A Storyteller in Zion" but I guess it might help too.
And now thanks to this post I think I might revisit Homecoming sometime in the near future and try to enjoy those last two books.
[ February 28, 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: cochick ]
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Ender's mom did give him a blessing - I remember Ender thinking about the holiness of the moment.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:shock horror when in book 4 we meet intelligent creatures on earth that have evolved. Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe.
What do you mean? Are you saying that Mormons don't believe in evolution? Because that would be a surprise to the zoology department at BYU.
Another link from BYU Newsnet.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
And by the way, the Cards are awesome people.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
Well as far as evolution goes "Man was created in Gods Image" - I don't know about you guys but my ancestors didn't climb out of no primordal swamp or evolve from apes etc.
I guess I do believe in a level of evolution - the development of some intellect/understanding based on acquiring the knowledge of an outcome after a continual process of trying something out. I can't think of a better example right now than those squirrels who can beat any obstacle to get to the food or foxes learning to steal food from bins in towns because they're natural habitats/ food sources have been destroyed.
Plus just because somethings taught at BYU doesn't mean its part of our beliefs - its not as if we bury our heads in the sand - we have to live in the real world and know what its thinking.
But you've made me think which is good. I'll have to delve into it further.
I've never had the chance to meet either of the Card's but I'd love to - being in the UK I@ve probably not much chance though.
[ February 28, 2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: cochick ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
There's macro and micro evolution - belief in one doesn't necessitate the belief in the other.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
We need a science and technology forum here at Hatrack.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Get thee to the other side, skillery.
It might say Books, Films, Food, etc. But that ain't what it necessarily means.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Why is the idea of God causing us to evolve from the primordial muck so much *less* attractive to people than the idea of God making us out of clay?
I suppose that clay seems more poetic. (Unless one has to scrub it out of the carpets every week--we have nasty red clay soil here in NJ). Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Actually, the primordial muck probably WAS clay. Clay is the perfect environment for the growth of microscopic crystalline structures that may have preceded and sheltered the development of DNA. Lipids form on clay as well. Lipids make up the main part of the structure in cellular membranes. It is moist and rich in minerals and organic molecules (anything that contains carbon is considered an organic molecule, whether it came from a living thing or not).
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Amka, that's really cool.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Working backwards from the assumption that we can grow into eternal beings with our own "Godlike" reposibilities we must assume that our "God" was a being who aquired responsibility for us.
If "He" is anthropomorphic as the LDS religion sets forth it is not implied that he is the final word in form.
Personally I think it is a stupid question. It is clearly possible for human level intellegence to exist in other then human form. We will be able to achieve this within fifty years if we were unethical enough to do it. The belief that human form is perfect and ideal is not only provincial and narrow minded, it also ignores certain basic flaws in human design. The structure of the sinus, the remnant organs that serve no useful functions, the flawed system that makes us hunger for poisons like alcohol and sugar and then makes them into the least useful tissue our bodies can have.
There are flawed genes in every race and intellegence is hardly dolled out evenly across the board.
However I think that it is interesting that Skillery wanted to shake up OSC and see what he is like underneath. Sort of a Gom Jabbar philosophy.
I personally love RA Salvatores Drizz't the Drow books, but when he mangled a Star Wars book in which Chewbacca was killed I sent him a detailed E-mail about what was wrong with it. Not profane or personally insulting, just a list of flaws and how they could have been corrected.
I still buy his Drow books in hard cover, but he has my name on his filters now. That told me that he wants to have an endless stream of praise and encouragement. A bit weak in the ego department for someone who has made millions from writing. Of course he sited spelling errors in my e-mail as proff that what I had to say was not worth his time.
Anyway to sum up, keep shaking people up Skillery that is how you know who they really are, it is also how you become memorable. However if you think that Intellegence can only take human form, then the boys at MIT and the Molly's of the future will make you run screaming to the cellar in a generation. Let alone whatever might be out there.
BC Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
You know, I've never quite gotten the whole "micro-evolution is real, but there's no such thing as macro-evolution" argument. It seems to me to be about the same as believing in micro-plate tectonics but dismissing macro-plate tectonics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
On the subject of fictitious species, Isaiah wrote about satyrs, dragons, and some other really wild stuff.
On the subject of macro-evolution, I will need to see a population where the "range of normal" includes different numbers of chromosomes. I guess we have some of those in humans, but they seldom produce traits that improve survivability. Do double Y humans have normal offspring?
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
I'm trying to overcome my bad habit of trying to shake people up.
I'm coming to the realization that a person has no business shaking somebody else up unless they really care about that person and are willing to stick around to pick up the pieces.
In the case of Mr. Card, I really cared about him, but there was no chance to stick around to pick up the pieces because of the limited time available. I should have said something pleasant or kept my mouth shut.
In the case of trying to shake this forum up, I didn't really care what happened here in the Card's living room because I could always drop out. I still wanted to air out my concerns about my bad experience, but I should have eased into the group until I got to the point where I really cared. Caring about the community would have taken the edge off the way I expressed myself.
I'm sorry for having been a jerk.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Wow, speaking of living rooms, I feel like I just arrived at a party where there are a bunch of conversations all going on at once. Which one shall I join? Hmm...
Noemon, am I correct in saying that micro-plate movements occur as a result of macro-plate tectonics? In evolution, the opposite argument is actually being made--that macro-evolution occurs as a result of many tiny mutations (micro-evolution) in a response to the environment or other selective pressures. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't know much about plate tectonics.
Posted by cochick (Member # 6167) on :
Hey skillery, love (caring) means never having to say you're sorry.
OK, OK - I just got through watching Love Story ( ) and am in a soppy mood Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That was a very gracious apology, skillery. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Shepherdess, that is a pretty good point. Though I guess there is a principle in nature that most observable phenomena occur as a result of an less obvious one. So humans were a long time observing orbits before we came to understand what we think is the reason for them.
Evolution is only partly due to mutations, it is also due to competition for resources, which causes the migrations and separations of populations that result in speciation (according to the Darwinian model).
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
quote:the flawed system that makes us hunger for poisons like alcohol
Alcohol is not a poison. In moderate doses, it even has several beneficial affects.
In excess it does poison you, but then so does vitamin A.
I don't mind at all that Mormon's have a restriction against alcohol, but it is irritating when they feel this need to make up reasons why it's bad for you.
Next you'll be saying that the wine they drank in Jesus day was only grape juice. (I particularly love that one)
Back to your regularly scheduled program.
[ March 02, 2004, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Slash the Berzerker ]
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Noemon, am I correct in saying that micro-plate movements occur as a result of macro-plate tectonics? In evolution, the opposite argument is actually being made--that macro-evolution occurs as a result of many tiny mutations (micro-evolution) in a response to the environment or other selective pressures. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I really don't know much about plate tectonics.
Welcome to Hatrack Shepherdess!
I'm certainly not an expert in plate tectonics either, but as far as I know, there's actually no such thing as "micro-plate techtonics"--there's just plate techtonics. It happens slowly, with the plates shifting a fraction of a millimeter at a time, with the occasional cataclysm causing more dramatic movement.
Now, I'm also not an evolution expert--honestly, I can't think of many things that I *do* consider myself an expert in--but it seems to me that evolution is the same way; I don't see a reason to divide it into micro and macro evolution. It seems to me that the tiny changes accrete, eventually resulting in larger changes (and of course, the occasional cataclysm of plate techtonics could be seen as analogous to the "punctuated" periods in the punctuated equilibrium theory of evolution).
Now, like I said, I'm no expert--I could easily be oversimplifying something, or missing something vital. If there is a reason to divide evolution into micro and macro, tell me all about it; I'm always eager to learn.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Thanks Noemon and pooka!
I just discovered OSC a few months ago (the first book I read was Sarah), and since then his books have been almost my sole source of entertainment. I've read all of the Ender books as well as the Shadow series, Treasure Box, Enchantment, Rebekah, and Maps in a Mirror. I think my favorite was Speaker for the Dead (which I read before Ender's Game). I have a bad habit of reading my favorite authors out of order, because I'll go to the library and just take whatever's available! Its been great to discover the Hatrack community. I've been content with lurking for awhile now, but now I'm ready to move beyond that.
So here goes... In my opinion, there is a difference between micro- and macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is observed today and macroevolution is not (unlike plate tectonics). We see mutations occuring all the time--almost all of which are deleterious. We do NOT see mutations that lead to one species turning into another one. I consider speciation to be a loss of genetic variation which occurs when a population is separated due to environmental/competitive pressures. The genetic traits which become dominant in one population or another were there all the time and are "naturally selected" out to become more obvious. All living organisms have numerous systems (DNA repair mechanisms, etc.) for preventing changes when DNA is being replicated. Now why would that be? Did nature suddenly "decide" that enough evolution had occurred and so all living organisms from bacteria on up would now multiply only "after their kind?" All the evidence I see points back to a creator who was an engineer/code writer/experimentalist superior to anything we can begin to imagine, and the idea that it just happened minimizes the wonders around us.
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:Did nature suddenly "decide" that enough evolution had occurred and so all living organisms from bacteria on up would now multiply only "after their kind?"
That's got me thinking. Seems like I saw something in Genesis.
Genesis 1:24- "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind..."
Do you think that up until that commandment was given, all sorts of strange creatures were springing up and interbreeding with each other and creating strange offspring?
Why did God have to specify "after his kind?" Is that not the natural order of things when organisms are left to their own devices.
Posted by HonestAbe (Member # 6254) on :
This is a little gem I found on the internet: Satan's Rapid Deployment Force (SRDF)
Revealed At Last! SHOCKING PROOF that Satan is active in the world and working to defeat creationism! Every time that we creationists bring up one of those impossible changes from one created kind to another (macroevolution), the SRDF gets to work and plants in the rocks some fake fossils, carefully "aging" them and putting them in the "proper" strata so that paleontologists can find them in a few years. Then they're shoved in our faces as examples of the major transitions that we know to be impossible.
We said a hyena can't change into a whale. The SRDF gets to work and presto! scientists are digging up Ambulocetus , Pakicetus , Prozeuglodon, and a passle of others. We knew damn well that no lizard ever sprouted wings and feathers, so the SRDF made up those phony Archaeopteryx jobs that were just TOO perfect! I mean, teeth, bony tail, claws on the fingers, along with perfect flight feathers--come on! Since we absolutely wouldn't accept such an obvious fake, now they're throwing in a bunch of others in various stages of birdness, like Protoavis , Sinornis , Hesperornis, and Ichthyornis . They claimed we were all fish, then we grew legs and lungs and crawled out on land--what rot! Where are the transitions? Enter the SRDF, and now we've got Eusthenopteron , Panderichtys, Acanthostega, and labyrynthodonts. And of course the highest priority mission of the SRDF is to "prove" that people are just improved apes (whereas Genesis 2:7 tells us clearly that we are improved dirt). We keep telling them that there are "missing links" between apes and humans, and they keep finding something to fill whatever gap we point out. After all, isn't Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis ) just a little too convenient? Throw in A. ramidus and africanus and then H. habilis and erectus, and it's hard to find much of a gap anymore where a link could be missing.
And now for something I didn't steal (but I'm sure others have thought of it). You remember that giant flood and noah's arc and all that stuff. Well how come two of the most anchient civilizations, the egyptians and the chinese, failed to notice this giant flood that covered the world? lol, am I willing to beleive there was a guy named jesus, sure, most definatly, but I also beleive the bible is an extremely biased history book based on some true events, with lots of awesome and interesting fiction to glue it together.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:Micro-evolution is observed today and macroevolution is not (unlike plate tectonics). We see mutations occuring all the time--almost all of which are deleterious. We do NOT see mutations that lead to one species turning into another one.
This is not true, actually. I'll get my biology-teacher friend on here--he can explain this better than I can.
Posted by chx (Member # 3388) on :
The Cards are very nice people -- though I met them only at EnderCon and there is a very small chance that I'll met them again.
Maybe my English is not good enough to really understand, but this word in our language means a very close relationship. It is said that you only know who is your true friend, when you are in trouble, real, deep trouble. While many people from this community surely knows Scott, maybe very closely, someone surely is a real sport, but friend?? Think again.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Card doesn't often mention God in his writing, but there is still a sense that his universe has rules...enforced by someone(?).
I would say that in his writings, the universe has rules, because that's the way the universe works. This goes along with a common LDS belief (I'm not sure if it is actually doctrine or not) that things aren't right befcause God tells us to do them, but God tells us to do things because they are already right.
The God that us Mormons believe in is bound by rules. For instance, He cannot lie, and He cannot change his mind.
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Yohzik, though I am sure your biology-teacher friend can provide some evidence int the fossil record, or logical speculation, Shepherdess' point remains valid. While we can indeed observe intra-species micro-evolution happening in the world around us, we have not observed any good examples of one species evolving totally into another species to the point where breeding is no longer possible. I would be very interested to see any evidence indicating otherwise.
As for HonestAbe's post, I think its incredibly funny, but just because a clever satirist can mock a group's viewpoint, it doesn't mean that the viewpoint suddenly becomes invalid. Also, to answer your question about the flood, many Christians (including myself and most other Hatrackers) do not believe that the Biblical account is literally accurate when it comes to time periods. That is why the ancient civilizations have no record of a giant flood, though many have a myth or legend based on an ancient flood.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
chx,
There are different levels of friendship, true. But I think you take the meaning of the word friend to be a little more intimate than it typically means in English.
From an english dictionary:
1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts. 2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance. 3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade. 4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement. 5. Friend A member of the Society of Friends; a Quaker.
As you can see, there are a lot of definitions. Hope that clears up a little bit.
Posted by laraem (Member # 6103) on :
i wish i could meet him, or at least be there at a speech or workshop of his... it'd be quite an honor. iv been a fan of his for over 5 years straight solid reading and rereading his books lookin on the internet etc etc. and iv never had the oppertunity to see/hear him. i wish though..
i guess he doesnt come to kansas very often...
Posted by skillery (Member # 6209) on :
quote:HonestAbe: how come two of the most anchient civilizations, the egyptians and the chinese, failed to notice this giant flood that covered the world?
In his book "Worlds in Collision," Immanuel Velikovsky states that the written or oral traditions of all major cultures include a story of the great deluge. He relates a particularly interesting deluge story from the Chinese tradition.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
quote:The God that us Mormons believe in is bound by rules. For instance, He cannot lie, and He cannot change his mind.
Boy, if you think all Mormons believe that, you should talk to more Mormons about it. I don't think it is a necessity for Mormons to believe that God is bound by rules (or that He cannot change His mind).
[ March 03, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Rohan ]
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Dear Rohan, Tried to email you privately, but the email you provided in your registration is no longer current. Please update that for me You mentioned you were going to link to a thread in Nauvoo. That is something I won't allow. Hatrack and Nauvoo are two very separate communities. Nauvoo is meant as a place for members to talk to each other, not a place where their discussions are held up to non-members for discussion or ridicule as happens in so many other online religion forums (Beliefnet for example). That's why members have to sign the Nauvoo compact which indicates that they are a member before posting at Nauvoo. I know you are trying to be helpful to the discussion on Hatrack, but I can't let a link to Nauvoo be part of the that discussion. Let me know when you get this message, and I'll delete this post. Thanks, Kristine Card
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That book sounds interesting, skillery. I'll have to look into that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
What about other miracles, the "little" ones Jesus performed? I say "little" compared with the creation of the earth. Though with respect to the flood, I think the miracle is that it doesn't happen more often.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Kristine: So no linking for even those who would find the discussion interesting to READ?
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Taal, by a strict reading of the Nauvoo charter, no, if you can't agree to it you shouldn't even be reading the threads. Of course, there's no good way to stop a person from reading the threads, but who'd want to break rules to read from an LDS website? Talk about your irony.... *smile* Of course, The Bible ostensibly is the most often stolen book, so who can tell? (Haven't checked snopes or anything, so that info could just be urban legend.)
--Pop
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
I can't stop anybody from going to Nauvoo to read. But our kind of unspoken contract with Nauvoo is it will be a private place for discussion among members where they don't have to be in combat mode. If links are posted here, that opens the discussion to be something else entirely. What, people are going to read a link and then nobody is going to comment on it? Isn't that the point of a link, to then talk about it or refute it or ridicule it or something? That's not what we promised those who partake of the discussion in Nauvoo. Those discussion belong there, Hatrack discussions belong here. (We also started Ornery in hopes people would take there political discussions there--much good it did me )
You can start any topic you want here -- though if something becomes disrespectful of anybody's religion you know I'll shut it down. And I've shut down LDS discussions that I felt were getting too intense because that's not what we want to have happen here.
So the answer to your question is -- no -- it would ruin the spirit of Nauvoo if I allowed links here. It would make those who post feel they were no longer just in the company of other members who understand where they are coming from and their deepest concerns. But instead they were once again under the microscope of the rest of the world and Nauvoo would be ruined.
[ March 03, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
Agreed, and respected Posted by HonestAbe (Member # 6254) on :
anyone smart enough to click a link is smart enough to do a search for that site, and posting the name of it is just short of linking it.
Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
I never said it was a hidden site. Everyone who has been on any of OSC's websites for any length of time knows about all of them. You certainly missed the point.
[ March 03, 2004, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: kacard ]
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
Sorry about that Kristine. I see your point, and I agree. I'll edit my original post as well. Again, mea culpa. Posted by kacard (Member # 200) on :
Thanks Rohan! I'll probably leave mine up now cause of the posts that came afterwards. Thanks for understanding. You are way cool.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i consider mr. card and his family to be my friends. the cards (and their childred) are gracious hosts both in public and private circumstances. i have always felt welcome at card's signings, i think he goes out of his way to show appreciation for the people that read and like his books.
i love the card family. especially that cute blonde with the bizarre sense of humor.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Honest Abe-- Interesting post! I'm actually more used to hearing people say that the Genesis flood was plagiarized from other ancient legends.
Honestly, though, can't you have it both ways? If those other ancient legends exist, then the writer of Genesis was stealing material. If they don't exist, then that's proof that the Flood never happened. Perfect! Posted by HonestAbe (Member # 6254) on :
the writer of genisis? I don't know much about the history of the bible, who wrote it?
That post i made earlier with the Satans Rapid Deployment Force, it may be mocking, but the species and evidence is quite real. many of the "missing links" are there.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
porcelain girl — I'm not a blond anymore.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Dog-- I can sell you some Rogaine to fix that. . .
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
I should post a recent picture, to dispel THAT idea Maybe the cartoon of me on my website will be enough of an illustration ...
Posted by scottneb (Member # 676) on :
Sweet website Dog!
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Wow Geoff. That's.........orange! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*clicks wedding pictures link*
*hits Refresh*
*hits Refresh*
*hits Refresh*
*hits Refresh*
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I don't need to see the pics. I lived it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Slash, I already knew I wasn't as cool as you. Do you have to rub it in? Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
kacard wrote:
quote: (We also started Ornery in hopes people would take there political discussions there--much good it did me )
Wow, I feel so vindicated since I used to whine about the political discussions in BFFAC. And the folks there would say "it's not literally BFFAC, it's a catchall and we can post on whatever we want." Finally, I decided that if there were going to be political discussions, some conservative views should be in them. Hmm.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I feel like I'm friends with the Cards, but it's more of a one way friendship, however, on hatrack esp. that's not uncommon. I feel like I'm friends with a lot of people here I've never spoken to, at least I've spoken to the Cards.
[ March 05, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: blacwolve ]
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
Ditto blacwolve. And I think that's valid. Posted by Lord Detheroc (Member # 6311) on :
As i finished the shadow series tonight i became overcome by depression. I had finally finished what i set out to do only 3 months ago...I finished the enders series as well as the shadow series. But im left with a hunger for more bean, more peter wiggin of the outside, and ive never grown tired of Ender.
Through these last 3 months i have felt ive gotten to know Card from his writings, the way his writing and development of plot and charachter can sway my own mood and feelings as a bystander. If i had a bad day, instead of reading 50 pages at night id read 100 and feel much better.
I cant say Card is my friend, yet his writings have been the best friend ive had over the last 3 months sadly enough, and i hope that there is more of Ender, Bean, or Peter in the future (*if there is something already in progress i have not seen or been informed of it would be nice to know).
Also this post is based on threads original topic, i began to read through the pages but got lost in the nonsense on page 1
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
(have you read any of his other stuff? There is more great stuff where Ender came from.)
Welcome to the forum! Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:But im left with a hunger for more bean
Taco Bell can help with that . . .
btw, Welcome! Posted by Lord Detheroc (Member # 6311) on :
Thank you, what other series of OSC's do you suggest?
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Alvin Maker series. Starts with Seventh Son.
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
The Homecoming series. Starts with Memory of Earth.
And anything else you can find by Card. It's all good Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
It sounds like you would love the Alvin Maker series (what ^she said). His other single books are really addicting as well : The Worthing Saga, Enchantment, Lovelock (with Kathy Kidd), the first two Women of Genesis books...and all the short stories in Maps in a Mirror.
I haven't yet read the Homecoming series, so I can't recommend it to you yet, but that's a good one too!
This should keep you from being depressed at the absence of books for a while. (I know that feeling.)
[ March 11, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Narnia ]
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Yozhik asked me to reply to this thread. She described me as a "biology teacher". While that is my passion and occupation, I am also a biologist (M.S. plus 183 credit hours).
cochick wrote
quote:"Well as far as evolution goes "Man was created in Gods Image" - I don't know about you guys but my ancestors didn't climb out of no primordal swamp or evolve from apes etc."
Evolution says that you and apes have a common ancestor, not that humans evolved from apes. This is a common misconception. You also share ancestors with every other living being on the planet including yeast, plants, and bacteria.
Taalcon wrote:
quote:There's macro and micro evolution - belief in one doesn't necessitate the belief in the other.
It's good of you to note the difference. Most people are not aware of this. To add a definition, microevolution is evolution below the species level. In essence it is the change in gene frequencies within a species over time. This has been well documented. Microevolution is an indisputable fact. We rely on this to supply us with vaccines for influenza virus, to treat HIV infections, to control pest and pathogen populations in crops, and many other practical applications.
Macroevolution is evolution beyond the species level. It is the creation of new species, genera, and levels of characterization above. The key question here is: can one species diverge into two? In order to answer this question, we must define species. I'll use the biological species concept sensu Mayr which says that an organism is a different species from another organism if it cannot interbreed with another group of organisms. Based on this definition, I'll give you one well-documented case of rapid speciation. Because I'm a plant scientist, this comes from the Botanical world. O. lamarkiana, a species of flowering plant is a classical example. In a population of O. lamarkiana, a large individual was identified. This individual was vegetatively propagated, and was found to produce viable offspring with crossed with itself, yet be completely incompatibile with its' parent. In a single generation, this new species became completely genetically isolated from the parent population. The new species was called O. gigas. Chromosome analysis revealed that the plant arose by polyploidy. In essence, the plant did not undergo the reduction of chromosome number involved in meiosis, and thus doubled its' chromosome number. As a result, it was no longer fertile with its' parent, but fertile with offspring derived from vegetative propagation of itself. Genetic analysis of many plants supports the idea that speciation by polyploidy is common in the plant kingdom.
There are cases of rapid speciation in the animal kingdom as well. Fruit flies are the best studied examples I know of. I'm less familiar with the literature, but there was a study done by scientists at Cornell where two populations of fruit flies were separated for 30 years. When reintroduced to each other, reproductive barriers had arisen such that individuals from differing populations had less than 5% of their offspring survive in comparision to 95% for matings between individuals from the same population.
For further examples of observed instances of speciation, please visit the talk.origins website. Look up some of the journal articles cited on the web site and read them. If you have difficulty interpreting any of the terminology or statistics, email me. I'm a teacher and I love to teach (I don't mean to be condescending, just helpful--sorry If I come across as the former). I think you will find that macroevolution is also a testable idea which has been proven to be a fact (at least at the speciation level).
If you want to test macroevolution beyond the species level, I suggest that you compare genomic sequences of DNA. You can do this online at the National Center for Biological Information (NCBI) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
Once you have compared DNA sequences of different species, and understand the mathematics of mutation and evolution, I think you will be convinced that evolution is a fact.
It may well be that, as my evolution prof. asserted, "evolution is god's way of creating the beautiful diversity of living things". If true, this neither denies the fact of evolution nor the beauty of creation.
-Skeptic
[ March 13, 2004, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Playing the devils advocate here:
I'm not sure I want to define macroevolution so narrowly as just speciation. I'm more concerned with the big jumps like: inanimate matter to primative reproducing cell with a genetic code, single celled organisms to multicellular organisms, fish to amphibians, etc.
What I want explained is how new organs, new cellular processes come about.
Moving away from debate about evolution I also want to state this: belief in evolution doesn't necessarily mean that one doesn't believe God created anything. There is the engine of evolution to consider: is it purely natural selection? Or might not there be selection by the will of God?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I do recall polyploid fertilization in plants, now that you bring it up. But plants are at somewhat of an advantage in being essentially hermaphroditic. Indeed, the emergence of AIDS could be pointed to as the creation/evolution of a new life form in our time.
So I'll revise my position to say that non-hermaphroditic organisms have not been shown to very often add an entire chromosome. Thanks for the heads up, Skeptic.
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Amka wrote:
quote:I'm more concerned with the big jumps like: inanimate matter to primative reproducing cell with a genetic code, single celled organisms to multicellular organisms, fish to amphibians, etc.
What I want explained is how new organs, new cellular processes come about.
Inanimate matter to primitive reproducing cell is a large step indeed. Many models for how this might have happened exist. I’ll suggest you read John Maynard Smith’s book The Origins of Life (Szathmary, E., Maynard Smith, J. (1999). The origins of life. Oxford University Press). A cell is membrane-bound. If you put phospholipids into water, they spontaneously form spherical bilayers like membranes around cells. These are called coacervates (see http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/coacervate.html Clearly not living cells because they do not grow or divide, but they look like simple cells under the microscope. RNA is probably the best candidate for the first genetic material. Like DNA, it can contain information in sequences of nucleotides. Like Protein, RNA forms complex 3 dimensional structures that can act as catalysts. RNA catalysts are called ribozymes. An autocatalytic group of RNA’s inside a coacervate is one model. That ribozymes can mutate and have novel functions has been demonstrated ( http://www.mpibpc.gwdg.de/inform/MpiNews/cientif/jahrg5/9.99/scta.html ).
How do new organs come about? PBS produced a series called “Evolution” which my students find to be very accessible. One segment discusses the evolution of the eye. You can view it online here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html Keep in mind that this is a speculative model that fits the available evidence. This is not proof that the eye actually evolved this way.
How did fish evolve from amphibians? The PBS series did a pretty good job with this as well. It doesn’t tell the entire story, but it does address how you could go from a fish to something with limbs similar to an amphibian. You can view it online here http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_03.html
The transition from single cellularity to multicellularity is an easy one to explain. In fact, many species of yeast are able to live as either a single-celled free floating organism, or as a filamentous multicellular organism depending on the amount of moisture in the environment. It only involves a very small number of genes involved in the separation of cells after division.
pooka wrote
quote:So I'll revise my position to say that non-hermaphroditic organisms have not been shown to very often add an entire chromosome.
To minimally address your assertion, I will point to the many disorders caused by nondisjunction in humans. Down Syndrome is caused, in most cases, by an extra chromosome 21. Klinefelter’s Syndrome is caused by being at least XXY, sometimes with more X chromosomes than that. Individuals are also known to show XYY, and other combinations of sex chromosomes. Now, these are not different species, but individuals in which additional chromosomes lead to changes in physical appearance. Addition, subtraction, inversion, and translocation are all types of chromosomal rearrangements. Here are some examples linking chromosomal rearrangements and speciation:
Here’s one in rodents: Hereditas Vol. 139 Issue 1 Page 13 September 2003 Karyotype evolution in South American subterranean rodents Ctenomys magellanicus (Rodentia: Octodontidae): chromosome rearrangements and (TTAGGG)n telomeric sequence localization in 2n=34 and 2n=36 chromosomal forms
[ March 12, 2004, 02:04 PM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
All the links for that PBS show are broken for me.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
That is because skeptic accidently put a period at the end of them. Get rid of the period and they work.
That said, skeptic, I'm quite aware of many of the examples used. I am still not entirely convinced that natural selection could be responsible for such a thing. All that has been shown is the steps in evolution. The flaw in such an intellecutal field trip is to assume that these steps could only have been accomplished by natural selection.
There is a real problem with that assumption, and that is that there almost seems to be purpose. And we know that there can be no purpose in natural selection.
The eye is actually simpler than most examples, because the transitory steps are, in fact, better than what came before. However, where did the rounded, transparent layer in the eye come from?
Every computer simulation involves intelligent design. It only proves that evolution can happen, but humans select for the desired outcome.
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Links in my previous post should work now. Thanks for pointing out the error.
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Amka wrote:
quote:The flaw in such an intellecutal field trip is to assume that these steps could only have been accomplished by natural selection.
I'd like for you to point out where, in my post I made such an assumption. In fact I pointed out that these were models of how these things might have happened. As for the underlying mechanisms, I'd include sexual selection, genetic drift and endosymbiosis as mechanisms of evolution.
quote:And we know that there can be no purpose in natural selection.
The word purpose seems to imply someone with an idea about where the process ought to end up. The outcome (analogous to purpose without the need for an entity to guide it) of evolution is organisms better adapted to the environmental conditions in which the parent generation found itself.
quote:It only proves that evolution can happen, but humans select for the desired outcome.
If evolution could happen the way the model describes, then it seems reasonable to believe that that was the way it did happen until a better model is presented.
I'd also like to address the intelligent design idea you brought up. There are two main problems with intelligent design. The first is that for it to be true, there must be a designer. To prove intelligent design, you must prove that the designer existed. I've not seen a convincing proof that such a designer existed. In fact, if one does, then I'd like to talk with him about misdesigning my carpal-tunnel so that I had to have it improved through surgery. This is the second problem with intelligent design. If you study organisms in any depth, you will find suboptimal design. The eye is an excellent example. It would be possible to engineer a more effective eye. The eye has a blind spot where the optic nerve runs through the retina. An intelligent designer would have placed the nerves behind the retina to optimize its receptive surface. Unfortunately, because the eye evolved from simpler structures in which neurons were in front of the retina, we are stuck with a suboptimal design that works well enough.
[ March 12, 2004, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Your problems with the designer assumes you know the motives and methods of the intellegent designer. What if the designer simply desired its organisms to have sight. It did not manufacture the organisms, as you'd like to imply. It simply dropped the purpose into the selection process.
There is no goal in naturalistic evolution. Organisms simply live long enough to reproduce or die. There is so much chance other than natural selection that the tiny, non-harmful mutations required can't even be selected for. They need to be immediately and substantially beneficial to the creature in order for it to be a trait that causes its owners to survive more often to reproduce.
I get really irritated when biologists speculate on the development of parts, and this speculation is taken as important evidence. The eye, for instance, requires photosensitive cells in the first place. Such a small thing, but... how did the cell come to have the ability to produce such a chemical? A retina is the next step, so an organism acquires it. An ability to decrease the opening so that images can be distinguished simply appears. A lens is more efficient, so that comes onto the scene. See? When you show the steps it is so obvious.
No, not to me. I still ask: how did those steps happen. Every one requires new structures, and most need new chemicals as well. Only small mutations happen, and none of those steps can harm the chances of the organism to reproduce. And they must be helpful or be such a common mutation that enough organisms have these new intermediate structures so that evolution to the next tiny step occurs. In many of those necessary micro steps, I fail to see how it could be beneficial.
Genetic drift is simply a way to show how populations can diverge, not how important evolutionary steps occur. Endosymbiosis is a fascenating occurance that can really only explain a few important occurances in primative evolution.
As to intellegent design: One does not have to prove that it exists in order to recognize the possibility of it presented within nature. In fact, it can be argued that the study of the history of life is a part of the evidence for the larger question of 'intellegent design or not?'. My assumption (of an intellegent designer) leads me to be able to explore more options than your implied assumption (that there is no intellegent designer), because along with every other mechanism I can try to determine if there was purpose or not, where you cannot even accept the possibility of purpose.
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Skeptic wrote:
quote: If you study organisms in any depth, you will find suboptimal design. The eye is an excellent example. It would be possible to engineer a more effective eye. The eye has a blind spot where the optic nerve runs through the retina. An intelligent designer would have placed the nerves behind the retina to optimize its receptive surface. Unfortunately, because the eye evolved from simpler structures in which neurons were in front of the retina, we are stuck with a suboptimal design that works well enough.
Skeptic, Would you call an engineer who is designing a robot an "intelligent designer?" I'm sure he would call himself one! When you talk about "suboptimal design", are you comparing the construction of your eye and the rest of your body to something you (or the most intelligent engineer on the planet) could create? I don't notice the blind spot because my brain was designed to compensate for the placement of the optic nerve, and it most certainly works "well enough" for me!
Skeptic wrote:
quote: There are two main problems with intelligent design. The first is that for it to be true, there must be a designer. To prove intelligent design, you must prove that the designer existed. I've not seen a convincing proof that such a designer existed.
I see evidence of a designer all around me, in the same way I see evidence of a designer of a building--the person who designed life is just a lot smarter than the person who designed my house! I don't know who designed it or built it, but I know someone did, because its here.
It really all depends on your perspective and how you interpret the data with which you are presented. I prefer to believe that there is an engineer (who in comparison to us, is most certainly God) who designed this universe. Others prefer to believe that random processes created something that is far better than anything we can even understand, much less create ourselves. The more I study the world around me, the more I'm convinced that human beings, intelligent designers though we might be, will never understand the complexity of even a single bacterial cell, or be able to create one, even with the millions of templates we see all around us.
So, either there's a God, or we're literally dumber than rocks (or RNA at any rate!).
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Amka wrote:
quote:Your problems with the designer assumes you know the motives and methods of the intellegent designer. What if the designer simply desired its organisms to have sight. It did not manufacture the organisms, as you'd like to imply. It simply dropped the purpose into the selection process.
My problems with the designer assume no such thing. I don’t have proof that such a thing exists. To accuse me of believing that I know the motives of something I don’t believe exists seems ridiculous (not that I believe that a designer does not exist—I simply have no evidence one way or the other). You obviously believe it exists without proof and that it wanted organisms to have sight, but didn’t take the time to do the job right, even though it is omnipotent.
quote:There is no goal in naturalistic evolution. Organisms simply live long enough to reproduce or die. There is so much chance other than natural selection that the tiny, non-harmful mutations required can't even be selected for. They need to be immediately and substantially beneficial to the creature in order for it to be a trait that causes its owners to survive more often to reproduce.
This is simply incorrect. You are arguing against a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Please read a textbook on evolution such as the one written by Futuyama. The fact that non-harmful mutations aren’t selected for or against is vital to modern evolutionary theory. Mutations do not need to be immediately or substantially beneficial. In fact, most mutations are silent.
quote:I get really irritated when biologists speculate on the development of parts, and this speculation is taken as important evidence.
Your irritation or lack thereof has no impact on the truth/untruth of an idea. Still, I did not present any speculation as important evidence. In fact, I pointed out that in answering your questions I was presenting speculation. I get irritated when people don’t read what I wrote and accuse me of doing things that I haven’t done.
quote:See? When you show the steps it is so obvious.
Simply because I do not know exactly how something happened does not mean that it didn’t happen by evolution. Alternative models are fine. However, if you are going to postulate a designer, then I want you to prove that a designer exists.
quote:Genetic drift is simply a way to show how populations can diverge, not how important evolutionary steps occur. Endosymbiosis is a fascenating occurance that can really only explain a few important occurances in primative evolution.
This is simply not true. Genetic drift is at the heart of how speciation occurs. Most speciation events rely on some kind of isolation followed by genetic drift. Please read any basic evolution text.
quote:My assumption (of an intellegent designer) leads me to be able to explore more options than your implied assumption (that there is no intellegent designer)
I never said that there was no intelligent designer. I simply said that I wanted to talk to him if he existed. Clearly the lack of an intelligent designer is a simpler model than a model that includes one. If you want a model that includes an intelligent designer, then I want you to explain how he came into existence, what his properties are, and provide some testable experiment which demonstrates his existence.
quote:where you cannot even accept the possibility of purpose.
If you go back and really read what I wrote, you will find that your statement here is way beyond reality. You have responded to something you think I believe without evaluating what I wrote. I certainly can accept the possibility of purpose. I’m just sorry to see that you are so blinded by preconceptions that you don’t read what I wrote.
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Shepherdess wrote
quote:I'm convinced that human beings, intelligent designers though we might be, will never understand the complexity of even a single bacterial cell, or be able to create one, even with the millions of templates we see all around us.
I have to agree with you here. I'm glad you appreciate the complexity of a single bacterial cell. We probably will never understand them in their entirety or be able to create one. Still, it's worth some time trying.
[ March 13, 2004, 01:07 AM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:you cannot even accept the possibility of purpose
AFAIK skeptic is an agnostic, not an atheist. He is arguing purely from the viewpoint of what science can discover, while Amka's and Shepherdess' arguments involve faith. You're not playing under the same ground rules, therefore the discussion is likely to devolve into an apples-to-oranges comparison.
As for me, I believe that God is real. But I don't believe that his actions can be found or proven by scientific means. That's not what science is FOR.
(Also, I think that God deliberately didn't leave any proof for us. Otherwise we would have knowledge, not faith, and our agency would be compromised.)
I also don't believe in any type of "God-of-the-gaps" theory, i.e., "We don't understand how it happened so God must have done it." I see this approach as ultimately faith-destroying, because once we DO understand whatever it is, then whoops, there goes our faith.
quote:The more I study the world around me, the more I'm convinced that human beings, intelligent designers though we might be, will never understand the complexity of even a single bacterial cell, or be able to create one, even with the millions of templates we see all around us.
I think we will. Maybe not me personally, but SOMEBODY, someday. And it will be really, REALLY cool.
[ March 13, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
Yozhik wrote:
quote:AFAIK skeptic is an agnostic, not an atheist. He is arguing purely from the viewpoint of what science can discover, while Amka's and Shepherdess' arguments involve faith. You're not playing under the same ground rules, therefore the discussion is likely to devolve into an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Thanks for clarifying this. Yozhik is right. I am an agnostic. I would like to believe in God and an afterlife but I can't without some evidence. I can't simply accept God on faith, and all of the religious training I have had asserts that this is exactly what you must do. I believe that the existence of god is untestable.
My intention in posting on this topic was not to challenge anyone's belief in god, but to teach what modern evolutionary theory really is. There seems to be much misunderstanding and false knowledge being presented in this forum. It was my intention to clarify so that you can make informed decisions on the issue. It doesn't really matter to me whether you reject all of evolutionary theory after you understand it, but the teacher in me simply can't stand the idea of people rejecting ideas without understanding what they are rejecting.
For evidence of macroevolution beyond the species level, I think the most compelling is in the genetic code itself. Here is a link to the NCBI website's primer on molecular phylogenetics: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/About/primer/phylo.html
[ March 13, 2004, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
Posted by Shepherdess (Member # 6115) on :
Yozhik and skeptic, The point I was trying to make in my post (which may have been missed) is that we are not comparing apples and oranges. We are comparing different perspectives of looking at the evidence. Believing in macroevolution beyond the species level does involve some faith, whether or not the scientists want to admit it. When it comes to that, I think we have to agree that neither one of us have convincing enough proof to change the other person's perspective, and so it becomes a matter of faith.
I think it would be thrilling if someone could create a bacterial cell in the lab. However, whoever did it would most likely be using gene sequences that had been isolated from other cells, not to mention the same protein synthesis mechanisms that are used in living cells already. When and if we create life, we will be using building blocks and genetic code that is already here, because it is better than anything we can come up with on our own. We will be imitating the original designer, at least in my perspective.
When I do multiple sequence alignments comparing genes from different species, I see evidence that the same intelligent designer created it all, not that we had the same ancestor. I am in awe of the engineer who, starting from scratch, created the genetic code, not to mention DNA replication mechanisms (with redundant systems for genetic fidelity). I see evidence for a finely controlled system involving resistance to change at the DNA replication level, but allowing for variation to preserve and diversify species, mostly through genetic recombination.
But that's just my perspective, and I'm certainly not going to imply that people who believe otherwise are inferior or less evolved than I am.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I guess my only reaction to this is that I would appreciate it if there would be more admission that these things are not known and that intellegent design is a possibility.
Unfortunately, things are sometimes more complex rather than simpler. Newton's physics were far more simpler than Einstein's, but it was the General Theory of Relativity that won out because it explained more. Heck, the Genetic Code (A language, even!) is far more complex than earlier pictures of how traits are inherited.
The difficulty is that an intellegent designer is a wild card, indescribable and unpredictable by science. And therefore science cannot be used. And this is where I get irritated. I'm not attributing this to skeptic, just shouting out my pet peeve in general. Believing in something that cannot be scientifically verified is not irrational when science is not even the proper tool to describe it.
My experiences in life are, by nature, not scientific, yet I cannot deny things that have happened to me and if I am to keep my integrity, I must act on them.
Science simply cannot explain or describe everything.
[ March 15, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:To minimally address your assertion, I will point to the many disorders caused by nondisjunction in humans. Down Syndrome is caused, in most cases, by an extra chromosome 21. Klinefelter’s Syndrome is caused by being at least XXY, sometimes with more X chromosomes than that. Individuals are also known to show XYY, and other combinations of sex chromosomes. Now, these are not different species, but individuals in which additional chromosomes lead to changes in physical appearance.
Thank you for minimally addressing my assertion
Though this is something I don't know. Is xy/xx a mechanism for the differentiation of sexes in all primates? Mammalians? Chordates? How common of a mechanism is that? Does polychromosome artifacts show up much in other species? I think in environments where natural selection is still operative, such individuals tend to not live very long. But I think I asked about XXYs and whether they can reproduce earlier in the thread. P.S. Sex Chromosome abnormality site Apparently, XYY and XXX are fertile, though I don't know whether the duplicated chromosomes pass on to offspring. Another site I saw while googling this said that multiple sex chromosomes are more common in fertility treatments where a sperm is injected into the egg.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
The XY chromosome arrangement is universal among mammals (to the best of my knowledge), and some other groups have a similar method (some insects, for instance). However, other vertebrates use different methods. In birds, the reverse is true (and Z & W are used); a female bird has the ZW karyotype, a male ZZ. Among reptiles, amphibians, and fish the method varies widely. Some are chromosomally determined, some are determined by genes on normal paired chromosomes, and some are determined by environmental factors. Crocodilians, for instance, are at risk because their sex is determined by temperature before hatching. An environment that becomes too hot or too cold will result in all offspring being of the same sex.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Thanks, Mabus! Isn't Hatrack splendid?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Yes, it is!
Oh, and something else: only two trisomies not involving the sex chromosomes are nonlethal (Down's syndrome and another very similiar condition; I don't recall the chromosome numbers), and every monosomy except Turner's Syndrome (XO) is also lethal. I do not have any research before me, but I would be surprised if the same was not true for most animal species.
So it would be very unlikely to produce a new species by this means, at least among animals. There are a few animal species that are polyploid (they have more than one entire set of chromosomes), such as parthenogenetic whiptail lizards. It might be worth taking note of that aside from the parthenogenesis, these species are virtually identical to other whiptail lizards. In fact, being essentially clones of each other, further evolution would have to be very very slow. There is no sexual recombination occurring, so all that is left is mutation.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I beleive it is Trisomy 18. When i worked for UCP, there was a little girl with T18. I remember that at the age of three, she had the size and developmental ability of a two moth old. Sadly, she died at 7.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Hmmm...my reading indicates that there are some children with other trisomies who live for some time. This site indicates that certain children also have trisomy 13 and 14, and possibly others. Still, these children tend to die very young; they certainly do not reach maturity and reproduce. I hate to discuss it so clinically--the death of children is very saddening--but that is the topic, and it is important.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What I learned from this post.
Is OSC your friend?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no, but he may or may not be a relative of apes.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
The lower the number of the gene the trisomy occurs on, the greater the defectc and the shorter the lifespan. I think that Angelman's is caused by Trisomy 15.
Posted by Alyosha (Member # 6187) on :
The smaller the chromosome number, the larger the chromosome (and therefore the more DNA it contains). This means that the smaller the number of the chromosome with trisomy, the less likely of survival.
Posted by Defender/In/Arms (Member # 6368) on :
from most of his books his religion doesnt look like it has limitation over his writing. but there still good Posted by Defender/In/Arms (Member # 6368) on :
ok that reply i just posted didnt make any since, sorry i didnt see the 2nd page Posted by Defender/In/Arms (Member # 6368) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I think they're just using me and my deep love for LotR parodies to get what they want. ![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Aargh - you can't do that people will think it's what we believe. ![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
I really had to force myself to finish the series and didn't enjoy it too much. The only reason I did was probably 'cos I'm the type of person who can't leave anything unfinished - oh and reading is like breathing - just gotta do it! ![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
) and am in a soppy mood ![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)