something for the sharper arbor!

[scotspine1]

i.e for millions of years we have feared predation sharks for example, but we have only been around planes trains and automobiles for a very short time.

 

No we ain't.

 

think hamadryad means our genes have feared shark predation for millions of years and it'll take another million years for us to fear things that will happen in the future we dont yet know about

[scotspine1]

mmmm you dont really believe that do you?

 

are you suggesting that this is a developing cult, with Alan as the "god figure"!

 

yes, its very similar to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, just another in a long line of flawed ideologies hoping to reach out to an audience of unfortunate people with low self esteem.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

i.e for millions of years we have feared predation sharks for example, but we have only been around planes trains and automobiles for a very short time.

 

 

 

think hamadryad means our genes have feared shark predation for millions of years and it'll take another million years for us to fear things that will happen in the future we dont yet know about

 

If a cuckoo lays its egg in another birds nest and allows its young to be reared by fosters, how does it know what to do?

 

our brains have hard wired instincts too.

[skyhuck]

My wife has a fear of moths, when were they ever dangerous??

 

I have NO irrational fears, so where do I fit in?????????

 

One of Darwin's best know finds relates to moths and flowers, can't recall the specifics and can't be arsed to look it up but basically the flower wants the moth to pick up pollen as it gets nectar, the moth wants to get nectar without getting covered in pollen.

 

The flower gets deeper and deeper and the moth gets a longer and longer tongue.

 

There was a flower that was 11" deep and Darwin said there WOULD be a moth with an 11" tongue, people laughed, after his death the moth with the 11" tongue was found.

 

If your theory was correct, there would be no point in this completion, they would both happily help each other.

[scotspine1]

I have NO irrational fears, so where do I fit in?????????

 

You've an irrational fear of asking the client for more money if you've messed up the quote

 

on the moth and the flower - Rayner has a long way to go convince people of his 'all life on Earth is in harmonious evolution apart from humans' theory

[skyhuck]

You've an irrational fear of asking the client for more money if you've messed up the quote

 

 

 

I have professional pride, which means I stick to my word!!

 

What would there be to afraid of??? a BIG SCARY NO??????

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

:001_rolleyes:mmm, I think i must point out at this stage after seeing a few comments that i might be leading this down the wrong path. give me some time and a little reading and i will clarify this position a little. I aint going to just continue on this path. i need to get my facts spot on, or you guys are going to crucify me! maybe Alan will give me a hiding too! LOL

[paradise]

I find Rayner's ideas very interesting but he really undermines it by slipping from scientific language into what I call hippy language. The two languages may both have their place, but mixing them together gives a bogus aura of scientific authority to wishy-washy thinking about the 'direction' of humanity and so on.

 

I wish he'd just develop his scientific theories as science and keep the hippy stuff out of it. As it happens I may agree with him that we need to change the way we think in politics as well as in science. I just don't think that he should mix the two together as though they support each other - it just looks like rhetorical sleight of hand to me. I want his scientific thinking to stand on its own two feet.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

yes, its very similar to L. Ron Hubbard's Scientology, just another in a long line of flawed ideologies hoping to reach out to an audience of unfortunate people with low self esteem.

 

 

Nice comment.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I find Rayner's ideas very interesting but he really undermines it by slipping from scientific language into what I call hippy language. The two languages may both have their place, but mixing them together gives a bogus aura of scientific authority to wishy-washy thinking about the 'direction' of humanity and so on.

 

I wish he'd just develop his scientific theories as science and keep the hippy stuff out of it. As it happens I may agree with him that we need to change the way we think in politics as well as in science. I just don't think that he should mix the two together as though they support each other - it just looks like rhetorical sleight of hand to me. I want his scientific thinking to stand on its own two feet.

 

i know what you mean, but i think the core of this is really a lot more simple than Alan can communicate! even i cant understand it all, but I do know that a lot of it makes a lot of sense to me, and i can see that under the floral and academic phylosophical language there is a great thought proscess going on.

 

and i am in