terraly

Joined

• started 5 topics
• posted 101 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by terraly

• 
  4

  How Does Protein Get Made?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  not being a science guy (my "higher education" came from being a pioneer and reading countless piles of awake!

  shit) i have a question for you bio-chemists out there:.

  i recently heard this syllogism:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  duplicate post deleted
• 
  4

  How Does Protein Get Made?

  by Farkel in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  not being a science guy (my "higher education" came from being a pioneer and reading countless piles of awake!

  shit) i have a question for you bio-chemists out there:.

  i recently heard this syllogism:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  So, our bodies actually need the amino acids from proteins. There's like 20 odd amino acids, and our bodies are incapable of producing some of them (I don't remember how many). These we need to get from our diet.

  Vegetables contain plenty of proteins supplying these amino acids. However, as Thirdson points out, some of the best sources are digestively unavailable to us. Others, nuts and beans for example, contribute many of the necessary amino acids, but not all of them

  In some sense then, meat is a "superior" protein. Many forms of meat have the full range of necessary amino acids, which make them an easy way to get a full complement. However, some vegetables do too (notably spinach and soy), and in general protein derived from plants will provide you with the full necessary range, as long as you eat at least a small variety of different protein sources.

  So in answer to your syllogism:
  Where does the protein come from in the plants in the first place? Answer: they are able to make the component amino acids (they're just simple molecules made up only of C,H,O, and N) and stick them together (in fact, amino acids can also be made in interstellar space, but that's another fascinating tale*).
  Cows can do the same thing, and so can humans, but we can't make all of the ones we need, so we have to capture some intact, and meat is a good way to capture them all at once.

  * As a matter of act, you can get chiral** amino acids in outer space, which is a pretty cool and amazing fact.

  ** chiral refers to the "handed-ness" of something. Basically, your hands are exactly the same shape, but they're not the same, ie, you can't exactly superimpose one on top of the other. The same thing happens with the geometry of some molecules. Now, the cool thing is that most processes are achiral, making the same amount of "left" and "right" molecules. However, biology is often chiral- we only have "left-handed" kinds of some molecules. For this reason, scientists sometimes assumed that a chiral signal indicated life.

  A recent result by Pizzarello and Cronin showed that interstellar dust is chiral in at least one amino acid (2-amino-2-methyl-butanoic acid). That is, some process is causing one "hand" of this molecule to be preferentially created or destroyed. That process is unknown (although there are some guesses).
• 
  2

  just wanted to say thanks!

  by jayhawk1 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i wanted to say thanks for the warm welcome yesterday when i first posted.

  you made me feel very welcome!

  it is nice to know that i am not alone in my struggle to become a normal, thinking person.

  1. 
  2. 
• 

  terraly

  Well, since I missed the opportunity to welcome you yesterday, I'll do it now.

  Welcome.
• 
  34

  For all x-JW's: quick question.....

  by Kathy in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if you remember, i've been inquiring about how to discuss jw issues with my boyfriend's sister.

  it appears she is accepting the watchtower driven interpretations of the bible, but we are still not giving up.

  if you are willing, would you respond, in a nutshell, to the question, "what is the doctrine or belief that the jw's hold that was most instrumental in leading you to abandon this religion?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  Hi Jason,

  I don't mean to be rude either, but Patio actually said "probably every other scientific source" agrees that dinosaurs predated humans, and this is a very good statement. Yes, there are groups that insist upon a literal creation period of 6 24-hour days, and some of these even have scientists working for them.

  It is the role of science to determine the truth about our world. For this reason, we tend not to give credence to the folk stories of a band of hermits above the evidence we can dig up and examine for ourselves. The scientific consensus is on the side of evolution. Since we are scientists, there is always the possibility that we are wrong, and so it's good to have some scientists trying to prove evolution wrong. If they succeed, we shall abandon evolution just as scientists for so many years have abandoned incorrect theories as new evidence comes to light.

  So far, no such evidence has arisen.

  Dinosaurs are not mentioned in the Bible. The largest ones could not have fit in the very specific record we have of the size of the Ark. Whether the Leviathan and company were trumped up accounts of crocodiles and hippos we don't know. It's a good guess though. There are several notable instances of biological mistakes in the Bible. For instance:

  "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you." --Leviticus 11:21-23

  In fact, all of the examples are six-legged insects. The point is that the Bible does not always get it's biology correct, and so why expect this from Job?

  I would be greatly interested in hearing some of your evidence to support the Biblical view in favor of evolution. First though, I would like to hear your explanation of evolution. It makes things much easier to debate if we both agree on what we are trying to prove or disprove.
• 
  12

  Song No. 32 - "From House to House"

  by Simon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  song no.

  32 - "from house to house".

  from house to house, from door to door, annoying everyone.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  Heh, very good Simon. I assume this was inspired by Slipnslide's post on the 4th?
  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.asp?id=7895&site=3

  Which, I have on good authority, is very amusing.
• 
  22

  For JWs: Proof! --Jesus' Return In First Century!

  by bjc2012 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these words were translated as either presence [parousia], coming [echomai] or arrival [eltho] in the new world translation.

  but all we are saying is that the word ...can, can, can mean "coming", a simple "coming" of a person.

  we remember jesus christ made an initial visit, or had a first coming, to inspect the temple for god, as the messenger of the covenant.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  I second that Expatbrit.

  I had to gnaw off my arm to stop my brain from seizing up, and I was only skimming through some of the posts.
• 
  11

  So...?

  by zev in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  if the borg don't have the truth....who does?.

  a question i've been pondering since learning of the deceiptfull ways of the borg.

  once one has the "knowledge" of good and bad, as it were, that the borg are/have lied to its followers, been deceiptfull, misused others quotations to suit thier purpose, and misapplied them, as so very well brought to us by maximus{which by the way, max, have you posted your story anywhere on the forum?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  Yeah, Ray's second book is fascinating towards the end where he gets into what he thinks Christianity means/should be. Not that he exposes of the wrongs of the Watchtower isn't interesting, but after hanging here for a while I've heard a lot of it.

  I don't know whether I agree with everything he says though... but it's pretty clear he doesn't think anyone "has the truth"- and I think he's right on that. Any group that is sure they "have the truth" is
  a) statistically almost certain to be wrong
  b) dangerously prideful and too willing to do anything to perpetuate this

  I think I do agree with Franz that if there's anything to it at all it's on an individual level. This isn't to say that some association with other Christians isn't good- or maybe necessary (maybe), but it's that faith is personal, the only important questions are ones which every person can and should work out for themselves.

  "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." Is, as I think Franz mentions, not saying that because the Witnesses don't have it, no-one does. It's saying that there isn't some group you do have to go to get it- only Jesus.

  Now, whether this is a correct sentiment- whether there's anything to Christianity- these are seperate questions. But if Christianity is correct, then I think it says, "don't look for a 'right group' and blindly follow all their teachings if they have a couple ones right. Instead, look to God directly..."
• 
  5

  Jesus As A Man

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  im getting the feeling that the jw's dont believe jesus is the second person in the trinity.

  do they believe in the trinity?

  it seems like they think jesus was only a man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  That's correct. Witnesses believe Jesus was "a god" according to their translation of John 1:1. So, "a god", but they still claim to be monotheistic. It won't be quite as simple as finding Bible verses to support his divine nature, for they believe he was "sort of" divine. If you push them they may tell you he's the Archangel Micheal.

  As far as proving the Trinity? You won't make any headway that way? It's the primary class of troublesome people- those darn Trinitarians- and Witnesses believe that all the arguments have been debunked, that it's all been explained. Becuase of this, they will not consider any arguments, not about the translation of John 1:1, or about the passages in Revelation (where both Jesus and the Father call themselves "The Alpha and Omega")... If you want to argue it, just search from Trinity, or doctrine of the trinity on the web and you'll find tons of stuff, arguments for and against.

  But none of it will register with your JW friends. It's obscure, and not easily proved, and the translation issues force most of us to rely on others to tell us what the texts mean. Witnesses will rely on their leaders- and until you can show how deceptive and unfaithful these leaders are they won't listen.
• 
  17

  Graven Images

  by ruffian in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  maybe some of you are familiar with the study guid that the j.w's brought to me.

  its called "what does god really require of us?

  " in chaper 2 they mention graven images.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  Right You Know, and Witnesses don't call out the name of Jehovah to scare away the demons they think are haunting them? Like somehow that word has special magical powers? Heck, my girlfriend even says she knows of Witnesses who carried around WT publications after hearing some experience about a Witness who was about to be mugged, but wasn't after the would-be-attacker saw some piece of literature she was carrying.

  The point is not that certain people behave superstitiously about all sorts of things. People do. This does not mean that that is how all Catholics behave around pieces of artwork and reminders of Jesus' death- or that such symbols necessarily breed this very human inclination to attribute superstitions powers to all sorts of random objects.

  Also, why exactly is Jehovah, a word essentially invented by some monk, the "superior" form? What makes it so? The FDS slave's acceptance thereof? Or do you have any other rational for believing Yahweh is inferior?
• 
  10

  The Good, The Bad and Evolution

  by Defender in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  in the bible account of genesis, there we were told that adam and eve ate from the forbidden tree of knowledge of good and bad and thus, like god, they started to know good and bad.

  these few words and actions apparently changed the course of humanity.

  even if we assume that this account is just a fable and did not actually happen, a number of questions and issues come up namely;.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  terraly

  Hey fodeja,

  Good to see someone else familiar with the basics of game theory in evolution. My first reaction to it (and I've only had one class) was suprisingly not one of "too mechanistic" but rather "hey, this makes sense".

  There are odd results that can come out of the numbers though. For instance, consider a population of individuals who must compete with each other, with a certain cost and a certain benefit from winning the interaction (think of bighorn sheep and their mating duels). It turns out that the ESS is to be overly optimistic of your chances of winning an encounter. This seems a little counter-intuitive, you'd expect the rational members to do better off- but they don't.

  This was one example taken from our prof's paper, which is a bit technical:
  http://www.tau.ac.il/~spiegel/papers/optimism.html

  It turns out that cooperation can also be explained in terms of these simple replicator models.

  Of course the economists/game theorists generally don't delve into the question of how these tendancies to "Do good" or "be optimistic" arise. They may be through evolution of genes- but they can also be through evolution of societies. In the above exmample, societies which instill in their members a sense of optimism will prosper at the expense of othes.

  This is especially important for human societies, in which genetic evolution is very slow compared with the evolution of ideas...