On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> wrote:

>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>>
>> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
>> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
>>
>> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
>> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
>> >american stuff.
>> >
>> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
>>
>> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
>> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
>> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
>
>Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
>
>(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)

I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >>
> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >american stuff.
> >> >
> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >>
> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >
> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >
> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
>
> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

I'm impressed by butter.

And bread.

And tapioca.

And soufflé.

And meringue.

They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
eye evolve?
--
Peter T. Daniels

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> wrote:

>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
>> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
>> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
>> >> >american stuff.
>> >> >
>> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
>> >>
>> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
>> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
>> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
>> >
>> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
>> >
>> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
>>
>> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
>> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
>> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).
>
>I'm impressed by butter.
>
>And bread.
>
>And tapioca.
>
>And soufflé.
>
>And meringue.
>
>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>eye evolve?

But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).

It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

Wendy wrote,

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >> >american stuff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >> >
> >> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >> >
> >> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
> >>
> >> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> >> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> >> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

Actually it was done much early by the Meso-Americans. The Spanish
imperialists/colonialists stole it and didn't begin to change it to a
modern form. Modern chocolate dates from the late 19th- early 20
century
and before that you had a form of chocolate drink that was thick and
bitter
requiring intense sweetening to be truely palatable.

> >
> >I'm impressed by butter.
> >
> >And bread.

As ancient as beer.

> >
> >And tapioca.

South Americans Indians discovered it.
> >
> >And soufflé.
> >
> >And meringue.
> >
> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >eye evolve?
>
> But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
> Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
> other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).

Is the compound eye of the insect much like the eye of a lobster
or the eye of a octopus or squid or the blue eyed mussel or the eye
of a homo sapiens sapiens?
>
> It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
> thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

But they are edible and have been used as food as early as the
baboons. That is because if you get hungry enough you will try to
eat anything including dirt. Hold it down and pound it with a rock
until it stops struggling and try it in your mouth is the rule for
ambulatory foods. For plants stick it in Mikey's mouth and make
him swallow, if he is alive tomorrow we will all have a feast.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

In article >,
Wendy of NJ > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >> >american stuff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >> >
> >> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >> >
> >> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
> >>
> >> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> >> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> >> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).
> >
> >I'm impressed by butter.
> >
> >And bread.
> >
> >And tapioca.
> >
> >And soufflé.
> >
> >And meringue.
> >
> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >eye evolve?
>
> But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
> Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
> other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).
>
> It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
> thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

Hunger. Now about oysters and clams! It was a brave (or hungry) man or
belike woman who first ventured upon eating an oyster.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

Walter Bushell wrote:

> > It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
> > thinking this thing could possibly be edible.
>
> Hunger. Now about oysters and clams! It was a brave (or hungry) man or
> belike woman who first ventured upon eating an oyster.

But they allegedly went on to make lots more oyster-eaters ...
--
Peter T. Daniels

Wendy wrote,

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >> >american stuff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >> >
> >> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >> >
> >> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
> >>
> >> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> >> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> >> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

Actually it was done much early by the Meso-Americans. The Spanish
imperialists/colonialists stole it and didn't begin to change it to a
modern form. Modern chocolate dates from the late 19th- early 20
century
and before that you had a form of chocolate drink that was thick and
bitter
requiring intense sweetening to be truely palatable.

> >
> >I'm impressed by butter.
> >
> >And bread.

As ancient as beer.

> >
> >And tapioca.

South Americans Indians discovered it.
> >
> >And soufflé.
> >
> >And meringue.
> >
> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >eye evolve?
>
> But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
> Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
> other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).

Is the compound eye of the insect much like the eye of a lobster
or the eye of a octopus or squid or the blue eyed mussel or the eye
of a homo sapiens sapiens?
>
> It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
> thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

But they are edible and have been used as food as early as the
baboons. That is because if you get hungry enough you will try to
eat anything including dirt. Hold it down and pound it with a rock
until it stops struggling and try it in your mouth is the rule for
ambulatory foods. For plants stick it in Mikey's mouth and make
him swallow, if he is alive tomorrow we will all have a feast.

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

In article >,
Wendy of NJ > wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >> >american stuff.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >> >>
> >> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >> >
> >> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >> >
> >> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
> >>
> >> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> >> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> >> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).
> >
> >I'm impressed by butter.
> >
> >And bread.
> >
> >And tapioca.
> >
> >And soufflé.
> >
> >And meringue.
> >
> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >eye evolve?
>
> But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
> Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
> other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).
>
> It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
> thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

Hunger. Now about oysters and clams! It was a brave (or hungry) man or
belike woman who first ventured upon eating an oyster.

--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>eye evolve?
>--
>Peter T. Daniels

Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).


--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Matthew Fields wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>
> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >eye evolve?
> >--
> >Peter T. Daniels
>
> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
> something like 8 separate times,

Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
Creationist challenge to evolutionists?

Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
--
Peter T. Daniels

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>>
>> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>> >eye evolve?
>> >--
>> >Peter T. Daniels
>>
>> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>> something like 8 separate times,
>
>Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
>Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
>
>Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
>got a lot of 'splainin' to do.

But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
unaware of the evidence.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Matthew Fields wrote:
>
> In article >,
> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

> >> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> >> >eye evolve?
> >> >--
> >> >Peter T. Daniels
> >>
> >> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
> >> something like 8 separate times,
> >
> >Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
> >Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
> >
> >Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
> >got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
>
> But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
> and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
> unaware of the evidence.

But it's rather amusing to see a rhetorical cliché met with earnest
explanation.

The Classical plural of octopus is octopodes. (Greek, not Latin.)
--
Peter T. Daniels

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>
>> >> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>> >> >eye evolve?
>> >> >--
>> >> >Peter T. Daniels
>> >>
>> >> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>> >> something like 8 separate times,
>> >
>> >Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
>> >Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
>> >
>> >Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
>> >got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
>>
>> But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
>> and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
>> unaware of the evidence.
>
>But it's rather amusing to see a rhetorical cliché met with earnest
>explanation.
>
>The Classical plural of octopus is octopodes. (Greek, not Latin.)

Okay, but I speak English.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>
>> >> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>> >> >eye evolve?
>> >> >--
>> >> >Peter T. Daniels
>> >>
>> >> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>> >> something like 8 separate times,
>> >
>> >Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
>> >Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
>> >
>> >Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
>> >got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
>>
>> But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
>> and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
>> unaware of the evidence.
>
>But it's rather amusing to see a rhetorical cliché met with earnest
>explanation.
>
>The Classical plural of octopus is octopodes. (Greek, not Latin.)

Okay, but I speak English.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Peter T. Daniels wrote,

> Matthew Fields wrote:
> >
> > In article >,
> > Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
> >
> > >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
> > >eye evolve?
> > >--
> > >Peter T. Daniels
> >
> > Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
> > something like 8 separate times,
>
> Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
> Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
>
> Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
> got a lot of 'splainin' to do.

Not really. The processes of evolution only require that acceptance
of the time involved. Light sensitive organisms usually leave the
light.
but when the light dectection system is hooked up to a reactive nervous
system it becomes an advantage for survival and hence for reproduction.

Light sensitivity may lead to the nervous system as much as learning
to herd animals lead to taking milk from the cattle and trying to carry
it in leather bags, leads to cheese and butter. Curiously enough in
Africa the milk digestion gene doesn't work well after childhood
and cattle may be used for the extraction of blood for food and drink.

The big difficulty is acceptance of the immense time scale of
the macro universe which permits the evolution of all things.

> --
> Peter T. Daniels

later
bliss -- C O C O A Powered... (at california dot com)

--
"It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the beans of cocoa that the thoughts acquire speed,
the thighs acquire girth, the girth become a warning.
It is by theobromine alone I set my mind in motion."
--from Someone else's Dune spoof ripped to my taste.

bobbie sellers wrote:

> > Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
> > got a lot of 'splainin' to do.
>
> Not really. The processes of evolution only require that acceptance
> of the time involved. Light sensitive organisms usually leave the
> light.
> but when the light dectection system is hooked up to a reactive nervous
> system it becomes an advantage for survival and hence for reproduction.

The Devil is in the details.
--
Peter T. Daniels

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>Matthew Fields wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>>
>> >They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>> >eye evolve?
>> >--
>> >Peter T. Daniels
>>
>> Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>> something like 8 separate times,
>
>Are you not aware that "How did the eye evolve?" is the standard
>Creationist challenge to evolutionists?
>
>Obviously both eyes evolved and butter was invented, but both processes
>got a lot of 'splainin' to do.

But at least for the eye, the explanation already exists in droves,
and the Creationist challenge hinges upon its hearer being completely
unaware of the evidence.

--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

Matthew Fields wrote:
> certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
> a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).
>

I've already got that one bookmarked, and there are some lovely photos.
I have yesterday's as the background on my desktop.


--
Blessed Cecilia, appear in visions
To all musicians, appear and inspi
Translated Daughter, come down and startle
Composing mortals with immortal fire.

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:00 GMT, "Matthew Fields" >
wrote:

>In article >,
>Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>
>>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>>eye evolve?
>>--
>>Peter T. Daniels
>
>Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
>all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
>system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
>natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
>guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
>spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
>all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
>used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
>scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
>Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
>and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
>looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
>certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
>a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).


There are some really interesting videos of supercomputer simulations
of colliding elliptical galaxies that give rise to many galactic
shapes seen in telescopes. I have this on video from a while back
(early 90's or late 80's - I don't really remember), so I don't know
if it's available on the net anywhere. I think they were done by JPL.

-Wendy

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:23:02 GMT, Wendy of NJ >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:00 GMT, "Matthew Fields" >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>>
>>>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>>>eye evolve?
>>>--
>>>Peter T. Daniels
>>
>>Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>>something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
>>all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
>>system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
>>natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
>>guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
>>spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
>>all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
>>used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
>>scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
>>Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
>>and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
>>looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
>>certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
>>a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).
>
>
>There are some really interesting videos of supercomputer simulations
>of colliding elliptical galaxies that give rise to many galactic
>shapes seen in telescopes. I have this on video from a while back
>(early 90's or late 80's - I don't really remember), so I don't know
>if it's available on the net anywhere. I think they were done by JPL.
>
>-Wendy

Replying to myself to add: these aren't the videos I meant in the
previous post, but they are very cool:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/stinson/nbody/galform/

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 23:23:02 GMT, Wendy of NJ >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:00 GMT, "Matthew Fields" >
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>>
>>>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>>>eye evolve?
>>>--
>>>Peter T. Daniels
>>
>>Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>>something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
>>all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
>>system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
>>natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
>>guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
>>spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
>>all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
>>used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
>>scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
>>Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
>>and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
>>looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
>>certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
>>a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).
>
>
>There are some really interesting videos of supercomputer simulations
>of colliding elliptical galaxies that give rise to many galactic
>shapes seen in telescopes. I have this on video from a while back
>(early 90's or late 80's - I don't really remember), so I don't know
>if it's available on the net anywhere. I think they were done by JPL.
>
>-Wendy

Replying to myself to add: these aren't the videos I meant in the
previous post, but they are very cool:

http://www.astro.washington.edu/stinson/nbody/galform/

On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 03:13:00 GMT, "Matthew Fields" >
wrote:

>In article >,
>Peter T. Daniels > wrote:
>
>>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>>eye evolve?
>>--
>>Peter T. Daniels
>
>Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
>something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
>all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
>system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
>natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
>guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
>spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
>all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
>used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
>scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
>Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
>and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
>looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
>certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
>a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).


There are some really interesting videos of supercomputer simulations
of colliding elliptical galaxies that give rise to many galactic
shapes seen in telescopes. I have this on video from a while back
(early 90's or late 80's - I don't really remember), so I don't know
if it's available on the net anywhere. I think they were done by JPL.

-Wendy

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>eye evolve?
>--
>Peter T. Daniels

Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).


--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 22:32:21 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> wrote:

>Wendy of NJ wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
>> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
>> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
>> >> >american stuff.
>> >> >
>> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
>> >>
>> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
>> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
>> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
>> >
>> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
>> >
>> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
>>
>> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
>> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
>> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).
>
>I'm impressed by butter.
>
>And bread.
>
>And tapioca.
>
>And soufflé.
>
>And meringue.
>
>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>eye evolve?

But, according to current knowledge, the eye evolved independently on
Earth about 18 different times, and they are all quite similar to each
other. (OK, maybe it's 4 instead of 18, but still).

It's like, to me anyway, someone looking at a crab or a lobster and
thinking this thing could possibly be edible.

In article >,
Peter T. Daniels > wrote:

>They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
>eye evolve?
>--
>Peter T. Daniels

Ever seen planaria flatworms? or octopusses? Eyes have evolved
something like 8 separate times, including "half-an-eye" phases where
all they are is light-sensitive patches hooked up to the nervous
system. A fuller awareness of what's already been explored in the
natural world puts things like eyes into perspective as practically
guaranteed to arise, while leaving questions like how galaxies get
spiral structures unanswered (My current pet hypothesis is that almost
all spiral galaxies have arisen from mergers of smaller galaxies which
used to orbit each other, but the events take place on such a vast
scale of time and space and my grasp of numerical solutions to General
Relativity is too weak for me to simulate the hypothesis in a computer
and see what features of galaxies it might predict which nobody has
looked for before--but watching this game from the sidelines is
certainly exciting, see http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html for
a wonderful archive of visual aids on this kind of topic).


--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/

yes

Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >>
> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >american stuff.
> >> >
> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >>
> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >
> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >
> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
>
> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

I'm impressed by butter.

And bread.

And tapioca.

And soufflé.

And meringue.

They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
eye evolve?
--
Peter T. Daniels

Wendy of NJ wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 17:59:43 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > wrote:
>
> >Wendy of NJ wrote:
> >>
> >> On 11 Nov 2004 00:41:39 -0800,
> >> (neurocratic malfunction) wrote:
> >>
> >> >over the weekend, i decided to be a little fancy and bought some
> >> >imported european chocolate cuz i heard it's so much better than
> >> >american stuff.
> >> >
> >> >bullshit. american stuff is much better. hershey almond is the best.
> >>
> >> I used to agree with you (but it had to be DARK chocolate), but then,
> >> a colleague came back from Eruope with some French chocolates. OMFG.
> >> The only thing that supassed that was sex. (and only really GOOD sex).
> >
> >Wait'll you find out about Belgian!
> >
> >(And the readily available Godiva isn't considered the best over there.)
>
> I find the entire chocolate thing slightly amazing, considering the
> amount of processing it takes to convert cocoa/cacao to chocolate (and
> that someone figured out how to do it in the 17th century).

I'm impressed by butter.

And bread.

And tapioca.

And soufflé.

And meringue.

They're all just so inherently implausible -- kind of like, How did the
eye evolve?
--
Peter T. Daniels