Darwin Foiled Again

[Hawkmoth]

AS a firm believer in The Darwin Awards take a greenie NC

Bob

[magictime]

As the OP conflated human frailty with a C19th theory of morphism, the comparison bears scrutiny, even on a boating forum.

 

It's not the OP's conflation of human error and the process of evolution by natural selection with which I take issue; it's your conflation of "authentic Darwinism" (a theory about the process through which the evolution of organism occurs), and some sort of "social Darwinist" moral code according to which selfishness is good and admirable while selfless acts of kindness are to be condemned.

 

 

That things evolve is beyond question, how and why is a different matter.

 

Indeed. But "authentic Darwinians" have never proposed that it proceeds if and only if organisms respect a moral imperative to act selfishly, so that unselfish acts are something to be condemned.

 

 

Materialist answers are entirely promissory, and the official line resembles pseudoscience. Without the most rudimentary theory of conscious emergence from unconscious matter, invoking Darwin as an arbiter of navigational smartness is premature.

 

"Entirely promissory" is a bit of a stretch, to say the least. It's fair enough to suggest that science has not, and may never deliver on the materialist promise to explain even consciousness in purely physical terms, since the " hard problem" is arguably not one that science is suited to solve. But "entirely promissory" suggests that science has not succeeded in explaining anything in purely physical terms, which is absurd. It has explained a great many things, including how the morphology of organisms evolves through a process of natural selection which is nowadays understood in terms of the replication of genes.

 

Anyway, that is about as deep as I'd care to get into a discussion about physicalism, the hard problem, and the virtues of Darwinism vs. competing accounts of how and why organisms evolve. I was, as I say, merely taking issue with your characterisation of "authentic Darwinians" as unreasonable people who condemn selfless acts.

[Locksprite]

But "entirely promissory" suggests that science has not succeeded in explaining anything in purely physical terms, which is absurd.

kebod on blink, but this viewpint is one I concu with:

[Victor Vectis]

I thought Darwin Awards were only really given to those who had not reproduced, thereby not passing on their 'stoopid' genes to their offspring.

[ditchcrawler]

 

Whilst that statement is basically true, it has no relevance to what was happening while the Lifeboat was assisting.

In the report you quoted, local HW was given as '3.55pm' and the tow commenced 4 hours and 25 minutes earlier at 1130 when the tide would have been rising and covering any drying areas.

Your choice of title for a topic about someone unfortunate enough to breakdown at sea, but nonetheless fortunate enough to be blown ashore where the Lifeboat crew can wade out to assist, is unwarranted, offensive and highly distasteful.

But did they walk from the shore or the edge of the sandbank. Off Gt. Yarmouth when doing rescues on Scroby Sands its not unusual for the Lifeboat Crew to have to hop over the side and wade onto the sands and that's about 5 miles off the beach

 

Edit from a Gt. Yarmouth report

 

"ILB was launched this afternoon at 14:28 by Humber Coastguard of reports to an unidentified object seen on the banks of Scroby Sands. As the ILB got nearer to the banks we could see the erected structure. A crew member walk over to investigate. On return it was described as some sort of man made teepee made of drift wood, feathers and scraps which had been washed up. It stood apox 2.5 meters but looked like it had been there some time. Coastguard was informed of our findings and was asured it was no threat to any shipping navigation so was left.

ILB was then stood down and returned to station."

Edited November 11, 2015 by ditchcrawler

[Tony Dunkley]

But did they walk from the shore or the edge of the sandbank. Off Gt. Yarmouth when doing rescues on Scroby Sands its not unusual for the Lifeboat Crew to have to hop over the side and wade onto the sands and that's about 5 miles off the beach

 

 

That isn't really the point I was making.

A comment was made to the effect ~ "Don't let that picture fool you. Conditions in the Wash change very quickly as the tide drops and the sand banks start to emerge." ~ which is irrelevant nonsense when considering how conditions are likely to change in the 4 hours and 25 minutes before local High Water.

In fact, it's also nonsense when considering how conditions change after HW, because things calm down considerably to leeward of drying banks on a falling tide.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Tony Dunkley

[howardang]

As the OP conflated human frailty with a C19th theory of morphism, the comparison bears scrutiny, even on a boating forum. That things evolve is beyond question, how and why is a different matter. Materialist answers are entirely promissory, and the official line resembles pseudoscience. Without the most rudimentary theory of conscious emergence from unconscious matter, invoking Darwin as an arbiter of navigational smartness is premature.

What does that load of tosh mean in plain english?

 

Howard

[Locksprite]

What does that load of tosh mean in plain english?

 

Howard

You'd have to ask Darwin. As a casual slur against someone else's boating prowess is probably not the best springboard for a discussion on metaphysics, it might be more appropriate to begin one in the pub.

[magictime]

kebod on blink, but this viewpint is one I concu with:

 

OK, but Peter Russell doesn't deny that science can explain an awful lot in terms of things like particles, molecules (like DNA?), cells, and presumably organisms. He just thinks that the "fundamental nature" of these things is mental rather than material. This is from his website:

 

"Even though there may be no physical basis to the external world, the laws of physics still hold true. The only thing that changes is our assumption of what we are measuring. We are not measuring physical particles or such, but perturbations in the Akashic mind-field. The laws of "physics" become the laws governing the unfolding of a mental field, reflections of how perturbations in this field interact.

What we call an elementary particle would correspond to an elementary variation in the field. We might better call it an elementary entity rather than particle. Elementary entities are organized into atoms, molecules, cells and suchlike, just as in the current paradigm."

 

Anyway, I have already ventured much further down this rabbit hole than I intended. As I keep saying, I'm not really bothered about your views on the truth or falsity of Darwinism, the fundamental nature of reality, or anything else; I just take issue with your assertion that "authentic Darwinians" are unreasonable people who condemn acts of kindness. But you're clearly not going to respond to that point, so I guess I'll leave it there.

[Locksprite]

I just take issue with your assertion that "authentic Darwinians" are unreasonable people who condemn acts of kindness. But you're clearly not going to respond to that point, so I guess I'll leave it there.

Likewise, I don't care about the OP's position on evolution biology, but I do take exception to complex debates on the nature of evolutionary change being used as code for "common sense". I'll respond to any point you care to make, but not in this thread, it doesn't warrant it. If you actually watched the link rather than take a soundbite short cut - well done!

 

Edit: thread started in TVP.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Locksprite

[magictime]

Likewise, I don't care about the OP's position on evolution biology, but I do take exception to complex debates on the nature of evolutionary change being used as code for "common sense". I'll respond to any point you care to make, but not in this thread, it doesn't warrant it. If you actually watched the link rather than take a soundbite short cut - well done!

 

*sigh*

 

Go on then, PM sent.

[blackrose]

An authentic Darwinian would condemn the lifeboat crew who chose to risk their lives to save people they didn't know, and at no benefit to themselves. This would be passed off as reciprocal altruism, another genetic imperative we "lumbering biological robots" (R. Dawkins) are subject to. Fortunately more reasonable human beings call it kindness.

I think you seriously misunderstand the work of Richard Dawkins.

[Ricco1]

The language used in the report made me smile. It looks like it was written by a mixture of serving police officer (higher ranked) and a total retard.

[Locksprite]

I think you seriously misunderstand the work of Richard Dawkins.

Happy to be enlightened in the Pub. Coastal navigation and materialism make poor bedfellows.

[MtB]

I wouldnt want to be out there but it didnt look too bad as the Lifeboat crew waded on the sandbank

 

 

Given the shallowness of the water I'm not sure why the lifeboat was called out...

[Alan de Enfield]

 

 

Given the shallowness of the water I'm not sure why the lifeboat was called out...

 

Engine failed

Blown aground on a sand bank

Gale forecast

Rising tide

Boat unsuitable for the conditions

Needed a tow.

[MtB]

Tide?

 

Nope, you've got me there...

 

(Which canal are they on??)

[Scholar Gypsy]

Tide?

 

Nope, you've got me there...

 

(Which canal are they on??)

 

I would commend to you the canalplan output on crossing the Wash from Denver to Boston, which suggests a 2 day trip. Note particularly the advice (below) on overnight mooring places, which I rather enjoyed....

 

"Totals

Total distance is 42 miles, 3¼ furlongs and 0 locks (not counting Denver Sluice and Boston Grand Sluice Lock No 3).

This is made up of a few yards of small rivers; 3 furlongs of tidal rivers; 42 miles, ¼ furlongs of seaways.

This will take 10 hours, 35 minutes which is 1 day, 3 hours and 35 minutes at 7 hours per day. For initial calculation purposes (before adjusting for such things as overnight stops) this is taken as 2 days of 5 hours and 17 minutes each.

Overnight stopping places

This is calculated based on 1 full days travelling starting at Denver Sluice.

On average each full day will be approximately 5 hours and 17 minutes travelling but some overnight stops have been moved to avoid unsuitable stopping places and this has affected the lengths of the days. The shortest day is 10 hours and 35 minutes and the longest is 10 hours and 35 minutes (the maximum day-length is set at 9 hours)."

[Alan de Enfield]

King John lost his crown jewels in the laundry Wash.

[Locksprite]

A popular theory suggests those jewels are now well inland, given the reclamation for farmland over the intervening centuries, and the likely path taken by the monarch. Someone, a Polish immigrant working a fenland agrifactory I like to imagine, is in for a bonus in his beetroot.

[Alan de Enfield]

A popular theory suggests those jewels are now well inland, given the reclamation for farmland over the intervening centuries, and the likely path taken by the monarch. Someone, a Polish immigrant working a fenland agrifactory I like to imagine, is in for a bonus in his beetroot.

 

You've heard the Billinghay Ruffs then :

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwUc4DSIHlA

 

On Labour In Vain lived Michael Strong, a quiet farmers lad

He spent his life a riddling tates and up to his guts in squad.

But Michael was a dreamer, with one thing on his mind

One day he’d find the treasure that King John had left behind.

From books he knew in twelve sixteen John sailed across the Wash

The laden boat was over-turned, the bounty it was lost.

But since that time the Wash had shrunk, So pondering the matter

He was sure it lay on a river bed beneath the murky watter.

Chorus

He Searched the Witham, the Welland, the Neane, the Baine

Carr Dyke, Skel Dyke, Great Ouse, Foss dyke

Twelve foot, Forty foot, any drain the Wash took.

River, sandbank, dyke and drain. (repeat)

The old boy’s searches all in vain

When ploughing up on North Kyme fen he heard a shout from dad

“Keep your mind on the job mate, your furrows out of wad!!”

Though Michael made a living from the soil and the sheaf

His mind was always wondering, to what laid underneath.

As time passed by now middle aged, with bairns of his own

On weekends Michael dragged them out, turning every stone.

When came holidays the children asked. “Why aren’t we like the rest”

“Most kids go to Skeggy, and we look for a chest!!”

Aaw!, come on dad

Chorus (we’ve searched)

The years rolled on, we all get old, the land had took its toll

Michael now a frail old man, in the same house all alone.

His wife passed on, ooh, must be twenty years, and the children flew the nest.

He’d given up his childish search. There was no cursed chest.

It was in the winter of 85 when Michael passed away

In a damp dark room his gathered kin heard the words he chose say

Please bury me where I’ve toiled and ached, upon the land I’ve kept

His skin went pale and his eyes they closed as his children watched and wept

As the next sun rose the boys went out to dig their father’s grave

The frost lay thick on the well worked land ‘til evening they did slave

When 5 ft down the spade hit hard, and snapped the shaft off clean

A silver chest lay in the earth and a coin from 12 16

With pounding hearts but not a word they turned back to their home

And took old Michaels coffin back to the land he’d honed

They lay the coffin in the ground, til no lower it would sink

It came to rest on an old mans dreams, the grave they then filled in

But as soil rained on the coffin lid a voice began to sing

Twas that of a fenland farmer, laid upon the treasure of a king

Chorus

(I’ve searched)

(The treasure was his)

Edited November 12, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[ditchcrawler]

 

 

Given the shallowness of the water I'm not sure why the lifeboat was called out...

See my post on Scroby Sands, that is high and dry at low tide but you wouldn't believe the number of souls lost there.

[Emerald Fox]

That's how I read it too.

Gosh, hasn't your hair grown quickly?

 

Catweazel's toad was called Touchwood.

[furnessvale]

 

Also I believe, the ten foot to the track bed edge.

 

The "ten foot" is the space in the centre between the two pairs of tracks on a four track line.

 

Note that all these dimensions are nominal.

 

The "four foot" is actually 4' 8 1/2", or more correctly these days 4' 8 3/8".

 

The "six foot" can be as tight as 4' 8" in very restrictive conditions and the "ten foot" can likewise be as tight as 6ft.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Guest]

 

Catweazel's toad was called Touchwood.

T'was indeed.