How smart are fish ?

Discussion in 'Reef Fishes' started by Pszemol, Jul 23, 2006.

  1. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    This one: news:ea2urc.f2g.0@poczta.onet.pl...

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C8D416.1080708@WayneSallee.com...
    > What question?
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
    >
    >
    > Pszemol wrote on 7/25/2006 9:37 PM:
    >> "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    >> news:44C63BE7.3020006@WayneSallee.com...
    >>> What question?

    >>
    >> The one you cut off the bottom of my previous message.
     
    Pszemol, Jul 27, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44C8E8FB.1090400@WayneSallee.com...
    > Most translations go back to the original documents.


    It is not true. I bet many european languages like
    German, English, French were translated from the
    Latin version, not from the original Hebrew/Aramaic...
    And even so - each translating person/team will
    have different "flavor" added to the translation...
    It is impossible to translate word-to-word from
    one language to another, especially so different
    languages as English and Hebrew...

    Do an experiment:
    Try to do modern text translation from English to German,
    hire two different translators, then get two Germant versions
    of the same English text and compare them word-by-word.
    I bet they will be different. Then hire another two translators
    and ask them to translate these two German copies back
    to English - you will be amazed what will you do in return.

    > If what you say was true, then the many different
    > translations would vary greatly, and they would vary
    > greatly over the years. But that is not the case.


    They DO vary greatly.
     
    Pszemol, Jul 27, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Pszemol

    atomweaver Guest

    Re: Where did we and our corals come from?

    Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in
    news:44C9041D.1040601@WayneSallee.com:

    > You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
    > them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
    > you can only go so far, and you start running into
    > problems with defects such as sterility.
    >

    We talked about aquarium breeders before, Wayne. They don't compare
    at all to strains in nature.

    1. How wide is a breeder's selection of genetic stock, as compared to
    that of nature? If the richest breeder in the world put all of his
    resources into one common fish variety (sya, guppies, per your example),
    he couldn't get get one millionth of the variety of genetic stock
    available in nature...

    2. What impact does the artificial selection process of the breeder
    have on the longevity of that genetic stock, as compared to the
    selection process outlined by natural selection? As you yourself
    pointed out above, breeders don't select for the species most fit to
    survive to a reproductive age (and then let them breed), they cull based
    on colorforms, size, finnage, etc, call them "sellable" traits, and work
    to "fix" those sellable traits, by cross and inter-breeding lines.
    Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.

    Comparisons of the whole of nature to the experience of aquarium
    breeders fails... This was a _much_ better attempt than some
    allegorical story about Martian scientists, though!!! Improvement,
    thanks Wayne... :)

    > There is some cross breeding that people can do, but again
    > there are limits, and often sterility.
    >
    > It's like there's a wall that keeps you from going too far.
    >
    > Everything has it's limits.
    >


    ToE operates within the limits that Earth provides, easily. Time and
    space are on its side. Tthe Earth is not 10,000 years old, nor is it
    all that small... Life on Earth has had about 3.5 billion years to do
    the work set out for it, and an incredible span of geography in which to
    do it.

    Regards,
    DaveZ
     
    atomweaver, Jul 27, 2006
    #63
  4. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Re: Where did we and our corals come from?

    atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 3:39 PM:
    > Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in
    > news:44C9041D.1040601@WayneSallee.com:
    >
    >> You can take guppies or other fish, and breed them to get
    >> them the way you want them in color and fin pattern, but
    >> you can only go so far, and you start running into
    >> problems with defects such as sterility.
    >>

    > We talked about aquarium breeders before, Wayne. They don't compare
    > at all to strains in nature.
    >
    > 1. How wide is a breeder's selection of genetic stock, as compared to
    > that of nature? If the richest breeder in the world put all of his
    > resources into one common fish variety (sya, guppies, per your example),
    > he couldn't get get one millionth of the variety of genetic stock
    > available in nature...


    Not true, many creatures can be raised in such numbers
    that they would never come in contact with in the wild.


    >
    > 2. What impact does the artificial selection process of the breeder
    > have on the longevity of that genetic stock, as compared to the
    > selection process outlined by natural selection? As you yourself
    > pointed out above, breeders don't select for the species most fit to
    > survive to a reproductive age (and then let them breed), they cull based
    > on colorforms, size, finnage, etc, call them "sellable" traits, and work
    > to "fix" those sellable traits, by cross and inter-breeding lines.
    > Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.


    Sure it is, it's survival of the fittest. Those that are
    not as fit get sold to pet stores.


    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 27, 2006
    #64
  5. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Re: Where did we and our corals come from?

    atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 3:39 PM:
    > Thats not the same process as Dear ol' Mother Nature, at all.


    Who is "Mother Nature"?

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 27, 2006
    #65
  6. Pszemol

    RicSeyler Guest

    The "original documents" were compiled from stories passed down through
    generations....

    Wayne Sallee wrote:

    > Most translations go back to the original documents.
    > If what you say was true, then the many different translations would
    > vary greatly, and they would vary greatly over the years. But that is
    > not the case.
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
    >
    >
    >
    >>


    --
    Ric Seyler
    Online Racing: RicSeyler
    GPL Handicap 6.35
    ricseyler@SPAMgulf.net
    http://www.pcola.gulf.net/~ricseyler
    remove –SPAM- from email address
    --------------------------------------
    "Homer no function beer well without."
    - H.J. Simpson
     
    RicSeyler, Jul 27, 2006
    #66
  7. I always use that as a proof that humans come from one cell. That it is
    possible, that we can see it everyday...
    Then again, what is evolution?
    Because humans and all animals for that matter come from a unicellular
    organism is why our development include that fact.
    While embryon development is not evolution, it exists because evolution
    happened.
    iy
    "Wilbur Slice" <wilbur@wilburslice.com> wrote in message
    news:ritec2pup3msbg1g8ctu0kl2rbmpc3vveu@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 01:06:25 -0400, "Inabón Yunes"
    > <InabónYunes@Naboria.com> wrote:
    >
    >>For God's sake Wayne, you are taking fire from everywhere dude!
    >>You see, go to church to talk about this, is the only place they'll belief
    >>you blindfolded.
    >>Here, hehehe, well, you can't take anymore beating.
    >>When I first entered this NG I was under the impression that you knew a
    >>little about something, at this point I am not sure how you made it thru
    >>high school.
    >>You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what it
    >>is
    >>worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language that are
    >>most
    >>likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what they were
    >>intended.
    >>For example, the bible says that the Israelites were the chosen people,
    >>apparently they were the chosen ones alright but to be punish by God for
    >>eternity.
    >>For 5,000 years their people had done nothing but suffer. Even today a
    >>few
    >>descendants of David died at the hands of the descendants of Goliath.
    >>See,
    >>they were the chosen people to get screwed over millennia...
    >>Do you still belief LITERALLY in the bible?
    >>Evolution rules dude! Just watch a zygote, unicellular, transform in 9
    >>months into a human being.

    >
    > Ummm... I am an evolutionist, to be sure. Creationism is simple
    > mided ignorant foolishness. But the development of a zygote into a
    > human being is *not* evolution. Has nothing to do with it.
    >
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 27, 2006
    #67
  8. Yeah?
    Where is the original document?
    iy
    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    news:44C8D4E9.3070204@WayneSallee.com...
    > Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/26/2006 1:06 AM:
    >> You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what it
    >> is worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language that
    >> are most likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what they
    >> were intended.

    >
    > Don't believe everything your professors told you. Most translations go
    > back to the original documents.
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 27, 2006
    #68
  9. Not only is that the case, you know it but your faith won't let you remember
    it.
    Where are the original documents?
    iy
    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    news:44C8E8FB.1090400@WayneSallee.com...
    > Most translations go back to the original documents.
    > If what you say was true, then the many different translations would vary
    > greatly, and they would vary greatly over the years. But that is not the
    > case.
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
    >
    >
    > RicSeyler wrote on 7/27/2006 12:11 PM:
    >> Ever played the telephone game in school Wayne? Going through person
    >> after person it never comes out the same
    >> at the end of game.
    >>
    >> Wayne Sallee wrote:
    >>
    >>> Inabón Yunes wrote on 7/26/2006 1:06 AM:
    >>>
    >>>> You see, there is a whole world outthere that sees the bible for what
    >>>> it is worst. A bunch of papers translated from language to language
    >>>> that are most likely so transformed that it says the opposite of what
    >>>> they were intended.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Don't believe everything your professors told you. Most translations go
    >>> back to the original documents.
    >>>
    >>> Wayne Sallee
    >>> Wayne's Pets
    >>> Wayne@WaynesPets.com

    >>
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 27, 2006
    #69
  10. Well Wayne, I knew better than to comment in your posts. I was stupid
    enough to try to bring reason to an ignorant christian republican.
    You guys make up the lowest class of the American society. In the future,
    our descendants are going to make jokes of people that use to say things
    like the ones you say.
    Yeap! in the same way we laugh when read about Europeans threatening to
    kill Gallileo for saying that the sun, not the Earth, was the center of our
    solar system. In the same way in a few hundred years, people are going to
    laugh at those that belief in creationism.
    I give up!
    iy
    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    news:44C8E384.500@WayneSallee.com...
    > The similarities are something to look at, and are a good starting point,
    > but they don't prove anything, no more than the similarities in machines
    > and computers prove that they evolved from each other. Look at things in
    > the reef, many things at a casual observance from a novice would think
    > that they were the same, when a closer look shows them to be very
    > different, and some things that look very different are actually more
    > similar than those that look similar.
    >
    > If you were a Martian doing a study on how machines evolved from one
    > another, some of the order of how you would say they evolved would be in
    > the same order that they were created, but some of the things would be in
    > no way the order that they were created.
    >
    > Wayne Sallee
    > Wayne's Pets
    > Wayne@WaynesPets.com
    >
    >
    > atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 11:40 AM:
    >> Wayne Sallee <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in news:44C8DC06.90900
    >> @WayneSallee.com:
    >>
    >>> atomweaver wrote on 7/27/2006 11:18 AM:
    >>>>> Wayne Sallee wrote:
    >>>>> The fact that we are similar to animals has helped modern medicine,
    >>>>> not the theory of evolution.
    >>>>>
    >>>> How so?
    >>>>
    >>>> DaveZ
    >>>> Atom Weaver
    >>> How so what? how so are we similar, or how so has our similarities
    >>> helped modern medicine?
    >>>
    >>> Wayne Sallee
    >>> Wayne's Pets
    >>> Wayne@WaynesPets.com
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> How does the fact that we are similar to animals _not_ help the theory of
    >> evolution?
    >>
    >> DaveZ
    >> Atom Weaver
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 27, 2006
    #70
  11. Pszemol

    RubenD Guest

    I HAVE YOUR ANSWER.

    FISH ARE SMARTER THAN THE PEOPLE WRITING IN THESE POSTINGS, WHO BELIEVE
    THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BUT HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.

    THIS THREAD IS NOTHING BUT A P'SING CONTEST WHICH EVERYBODY LOST AT START.

    FOR CRYING ALOUD STOP THE NONSENSE AND FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL NEWSGROUP:

    FISH.


    PLEASE, DON'T BOTHER REPLYING UNLESS YOU ARE A FISH.
    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
    news:e9u4bu.2po.1@poczta.onet.pl...
    > I have a problem... in my huge wisom I have covered a side wall
    > of the fishtank with a mirror-foil. Just to cover the unpleasant view
    > behind of the tank... and to get some more light reflected back.
    > Today I let the fish in this new tank...
    >
    > A pair of maroon clowns and hepatus tang get crazy seeing their
    > own reflection in the tank wall.
    >
    > Now my title question: will they realize this is just a mirror
    > soon or they will continue to fight the other fish in the mirror?
    > How smart are they ?
    >
    > It is difficult to take the foil off since it is in a tight space
    > between the tank and room wall... First day I turned off the lights
    > sooner and wonder what will the group advice be...
    > Should I go trought the trouble of removing the foil or the fish
    > will get used to this reflection soon ? If so, how soon will it be ?
     
    RubenD, Jul 28, 2006
    #71
  12. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "RubenD" <samotors@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:TPbyg.12772$2v.6387@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
    > I HAVE YOUR ANSWER.
    >
    > FISH ARE SMARTER THAN THE PEOPLE WRITING IN THESE POSTINGS, WHO BELIEVE
    > THEY KNOW EVERYTHING BUT HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO.
    >
    > THIS THREAD IS NOTHING BUT A P'SING CONTEST WHICH EVERYBODY LOST AT START.
    >
    > FOR CRYING ALOUD STOP THE NONSENSE AND FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL NEWSGROUP:
    >
    > FISH.
    >
    >
    > PLEASE, DON'T BOTHER REPLYING UNLESS YOU ARE A FISH.


    Your Outlook Express has a magical function called "Ignore thread".
    You can use it for threads you are not interested in...
    Do it, instead trying to influence what we want to do here, ok? :)
     
    Pszemol, Jul 28, 2006
    #72
  13. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    Pszemol wrote on 7/27/2006 2:42 PM:
    > This one: news:ea2urc.f2g.0@poczta.onet.pl...


    I'm going to assume that you don't know what you are typing.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 28, 2006
    #73
  14. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44CA2932.1000707@WayneSallee.com...
    > Pszemol wrote on 7/27/2006 2:42 PM:
    >> This one: news:ea2urc.f2g.0@poczta.onet.pl...

    >
    > I'm going to assume that you don't know what you are typing.


    Why? Link did not work for you ?
     
    Pszemol, Jul 28, 2006
    #74
  15. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    hehe nope, I don't subscribe to that news group server,
    and even if I did, it still might not do anything
    productive. It did add a stupid additional nonoperational
    account that I had to delete to get it out of my way,
    thank you :)

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/28/2006 1:27 PM:
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44CA2932.1000707@WayneSallee.com...
    >> Pszemol wrote on 7/27/2006 2:42 PM:
    >>> This one: news:ea2urc.f2g.0@poczta.onet.pl...

    >>
    >> I'm going to assume that you don't know what you are typing.

    >
    > Why? Link did not work for you ?
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 28, 2006
    #75
  16. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44CA509F.6040804@WayneSallee.com...
    > hehe nope, I don't subscribe to that news group server,
    > and even if I did, it still might not do anything
    > productive. It did add a stupid additional nonoperational
    > account that I had to delete to get it out of my way,
    > thank you :)


    Looks like you Thunderbird does not understand proper
    links to the newsgroups articles (the link was to the article
    on you DEFAULT server not to the server itself).

    Try this then: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/d8d2454f6138af6d
     
    Pszemol, Jul 28, 2006
    #76
  17. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    No, the link was for "poczta.onet.pl". That's the
    newsgroup server that you are using.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/28/2006 3:00 PM:
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44CA509F.6040804@WayneSallee.com...
    >> hehe nope, I don't subscribe to that news group server, and even if I
    >> did, it still might not do anything productive. It did add a stupid
    >> additional nonoperational account that I had to delete to get it out
    >> of my way, thank you :)

    >
    > Looks like you Thunderbird does not understand proper
    > links to the newsgroups articles (the link was to the article
    > on you DEFAULT server not to the server itself).
    >
    > Try this then:
    > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aquaria.marine.reefs/msg/d8d2454f6138af6d
    >
    >
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 28, 2006
    #77
  18. Pszemol

    Pszemol Guest

    "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message news:44CA6995.5080007@WayneSallee.com...
    > No, the link was for "poczta.onet.pl". That's the
    > newsgroup server that you are using.


    You are incorrect again, but this is not the point of
    this conversation.

    Are you going to answer my question or you pass ?
     
    Pszemol, Jul 28, 2006
    #78
  19. Pszemol

    Wayne Sallee Guest

    I just now did via e-mail. This thread is getting a bit
    old for the newsgroup.

    Wayne Sallee
    Wayne's Pets
    Wayne@WaynesPets.com


    Pszemol wrote on 7/28/2006 4:19 PM:
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44CA6995.5080007@WayneSallee.com...
    >> No, the link was for "poczta.onet.pl". That's the newsgroup server
    >> that you are using.

    >
    > You are incorrect again, but this is not the point of
    > this conversation.
    >
    > Are you going to answer my question or you pass ?
     
    Wayne Sallee, Jul 28, 2006
    #79
  20. It gets even worst!
    The "originals" were actually written in Greek which, at the time, was the
    official written language. Or they use they Greek alphabets.
    Remember, Paul to mention one, was a Roman...
    iy
    "Pszemol" <Pszemol@PolBox.com> wrote in message
    news:eackoi.2k4.0@poczta.onet.pl...
    > "Wayne Sallee" <Wayne@WayneSallee.com> wrote in message
    > news:44C8E8FB.1090400@WayneSallee.com...
    >> Most translations go back to the original documents.

    >
    > It is not true. I bet many european languages like
    > German, English, French were translated from the
    > Latin version, not from the original Hebrew/Aramaic...
    > And even so - each translating person/team will have different "flavor"
    > added to the translation...
    > It is impossible to translate word-to-word from
    > one language to another, especially so different
    > languages as English and Hebrew...
    >
    > Do an experiment:
    > Try to do modern text translation from English to German,
    > hire two different translators, then get two Germant versions
    > of the same English text and compare them word-by-word.
    > I bet they will be different. Then hire another two translators
    > and ask them to translate these two German copies back
    > to English - you will be amazed what will you do in return.
    >
    >> If what you say was true, then the many different translations would vary
    >> greatly, and they would vary greatly over the years. But that is not the
    >> case.

    >
    > They DO vary greatly.
     
    Inabón Yunes, Jul 29, 2006
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.