where does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle get it's information to initiate the erection?

i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the
erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. i know it's mandatory
to initiate the erection since i have not had an erection yet since my
RLRP oct 31st, with both nerves spared. i started viagra 9 days after
the surgery. i would like to know how that nerve works so i have a
better understanding of what is happening. i might start with
injections soon so i can resume my sex life and since i am beginning to
believe it might speed up my recovery with more blood flow and by
exercising the ED muscles. if anyone knows how that nerve works,
please share. it's not explicitly in the books.
gary

Hello Gary,
It takes time....First of all.
You are lucky with 2 nerves spared....
As much as I understand there is a muscle that relaxes to allow blood flow
into the unit. If one or both nerves are spared, the muscle using the
nerves, sends a signal to the area, to allow blood flow.
This happens when a man and a woman, or man and man, or woman and woman, get
in close contact.
The muslce relaxes, and the blood rushes in..
Viagra helps..
Viagra did not work with me for 2 years....
Injections work fine...
So, keep trying, there is no majic answer....
Good wishes
Walk, run, keep trying....
John Loomis RP 1999
"gary" <gary.miller12@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1166313416.968662.67870@n67g2000cwd.googlegro ups.com...
>i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the
> erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose. i know it's mandatory
> to initiate the erection since i have not had an erection yet since my
> RLRP oct 31st, with both nerves spared. i started viagra 9 days after
> the surgery. i would like to know how that nerve works so i have a
> better understanding of what is happening. i might start with
> injections soon so i can resume my sex life and since i am beginning to
> believe it might speed up my recovery with more blood flow and by
> exercising the ED muscles. if anyone knows how that nerve works,
> please share. it's not explicitly in the books.
> gary
>

gary wrote:
> i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the
> erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose.

Gary,

I wrote in a previous post as follows:

If you go to
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press...RCH/020318.htm, there is a
good explanation of the link between nerves and the initiation of an
erection.


In short, it says:


"Researchers at Hopkins ten years ago discovered that release of nitric

oxide from nerve endings in the penis caused erection, but the
temporary release of nitric oxide - a neurotransmitter that survives
just a few seconds before breaking down - couldn't explain how
erections are naturally sustained over time.


Working with rats and genetically transformed mice, Hopkins scientists
found that after an initial burst of nitric oxide from nerve endings
triggers erection, blood vessels release more nitric oxide to harden
and maintain the erection."


Also at


http://health.howstuffworks.com/unde...dysfunction-me...



a little more detail is offered. It says:


"As an erection forms, the release of nitric oxide by nerve endings in
the penis promotes smooth muscle relaxation. Nitric oxide accomplishes
this by stimulating an enzyme called guanylate cyclase. This enzyme, in

turn, promotes the accumulation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate
(cGMP), a compound that causes a reduction in the amount of calcium
within a muscle cell. This, in turn, results in relaxation of that
muscle cell and promotes penile erection. The more cGMP inside the
cell, the better an erection will be.


However, cGMP is broken down by the PDE5 enzyme, which is available in
large supply in the penis. That's why Viagra's ability to block the
action of PDE5 is so essential. The drug allows the accumulation of
cGMP, which permits an erection to develop and be maintained. Viagra
does not directly relax the erectile tissue itself, so in the absence
of nitric oxide and cGMP it has no effect on erection. It is for this
very reason that arousal has to occur before Viagra will work. And
that's why Viagra is an enhancer, not an initiator, of sexual
relations."


Finally, at http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/29/impotence_drugs.htm
it says:


"immediately following release of nitric oxide and production of cGMP
another enzyme, cGMP phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5), is activated.
PDE-5's main activity is to destroy cGMP almost as fast as it is
formed. The result of this breakdown of cGMP by PDE-5 is a rapid
decrease in smooth muscle relaxation and a loss of blood flow to the
penis. Subsequently, the penis returns to a flaccid state.


Unfortunately as we age cellular concentrations of cGMP decrease.
Viagra works to achieve and maintain erections by enhancing the effect
of nitric oxide and maintaining higher levels of cGMP.


The way Viagra does this is to selectively inhibit the cGMP destroying
actions of PDE-5. By blocking the actions of this enzyme system, cGMP
is no longer broken down. This leads to elevated cGMP levels in the
corpus cavernosum. This, in turn, prevents relaxation of the smooth
muscle in the corpus cavernosum, increases blood flow to the genitals,
and leads to stronger erections and intensified sensations."


I think it goes like this:


Step 1. The brain sends a signal through the nerves to the penis.
Step 2. The nerves in the penis release a small amount of nitric oxide
(NO).
Step 3. The NO stimulates an enzyme that causes cGMP to build up.
Step 4. The cGMP reduces the calcium in the smooth muscle cells.
Step 5. The smooth muscles relax allowing the corpus cavernosa to fill
with blood.
Step 6. The expanding blood vessels give off more NO, allowing the
erection to maximize and sustain.
Step 7. PDE-5 is activated and begins destroying cGMP.
Step 8. (I'm not real clear on this part, but I think) After orgasm,
the PDE-5 levels go very high, causing the erection to subside.


The Viagra-type drugs start to do their job at step 7. They inhibit the

effect of PDE-5 to allow the erection to maximize and sustain until
orgasm. The problem is, after surgery, the neuropraxia disrupts the
signal at step 1. Step 2 does not take place. So, no nitric oxide means

no cGMP, means no erection and Viagra doesn't get a chance to do its
job.


The Trimix, on the other hand, skips steps 1 through 4. It starts at
step 5. It effectively does the job of the cGMP, but is not suseptible
to PDE-5. Since PDE-5 does not destroy the Trimix, the erection
continues until the Trimix wears off. Neuropraxia or no neuropraxia, it

works where Viagra will not.


Hope this helps.

John

John
what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
releases nitrous oxide
i appreciate your info, but like others, it doesn't seem to address
this erectile nerve in the nerve bundle.
gary

JohnHace wrote:
> gary wrote:
> > i have not been able to find an explicit explanation on how the
> > erectile nerve works or it's specific purpose.
>
> Gary,
>
> I wrote in a previous post as follows:
>
> If you go to
> http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/press...RCH/020318.htm, there is a
> good explanation of the link between nerves and the initiation of an
> erection.
>
>
> In short, it says:
>
>
> "Researchers at Hopkins ten years ago discovered that release of nitric
>
> oxide from nerve endings in the penis caused erection, but the
> temporary release of nitric oxide - a neurotransmitter that survives
> just a few seconds before breaking down - couldn't explain how
> erections are naturally sustained over time.
>
>
> Working with rats and genetically transformed mice, Hopkins scientists
> found that after an initial burst of nitric oxide from nerve endings
> triggers erection, blood vessels release more nitric oxide to harden
> and maintain the erection."
>
>
> Also at
>
>
> http://health.howstuffworks.com/unde...dysfunction-me...
>
>
>
> a little more detail is offered. It says:
>
>
> "As an erection forms, the release of nitric oxide by nerve endings in
> the penis promotes smooth muscle relaxation. Nitric oxide accomplishes
> this by stimulating an enzyme called guanylate cyclase. This enzyme, in
>
> turn, promotes the accumulation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate
> (cGMP), a compound that causes a reduction in the amount of calcium
> within a muscle cell. This, in turn, results in relaxation of that
> muscle cell and promotes penile erection. The more cGMP inside the
> cell, the better an erection will be.
>
>
> However, cGMP is broken down by the PDE5 enzyme, which is available in
> large supply in the penis. That's why Viagra's ability to block the
> action of PDE5 is so essential. The drug allows the accumulation of
> cGMP, which permits an erection to develop and be maintained. Viagra
> does not directly relax the erectile tissue itself, so in the absence
> of nitric oxide and cGMP it has no effect on erection. It is for this
> very reason that arousal has to occur before Viagra will work. And
> that's why Viagra is an enhancer, not an initiator, of sexual
> relations."
>
>
> Finally, at http://www.mercola.com/2003/jan/29/impotence_drugs.htm
> it says:
>
>
> "immediately following release of nitric oxide and production of cGMP
> another enzyme, cGMP phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE-5), is activated.
> PDE-5's main activity is to destroy cGMP almost as fast as it is
> formed. The result of this breakdown of cGMP by PDE-5 is a rapid
> decrease in smooth muscle relaxation and a loss of blood flow to the
> penis. Subsequently, the penis returns to a flaccid state.
>
>
> Unfortunately as we age cellular concentrations of cGMP decrease.
> Viagra works to achieve and maintain erections by enhancing the effect
> of nitric oxide and maintaining higher levels of cGMP.
>
>
> The way Viagra does this is to selectively inhibit the cGMP destroying
> actions of PDE-5. By blocking the actions of this enzyme system, cGMP
> is no longer broken down. This leads to elevated cGMP levels in the
> corpus cavernosum. This, in turn, prevents relaxation of the smooth
> muscle in the corpus cavernosum, increases blood flow to the genitals,
> and leads to stronger erections and intensified sensations."
>
>
> I think it goes like this:
>
>
> Step 1. The brain sends a signal through the nerves to the penis.
> Step 2. The nerves in the penis release a small amount of nitric oxide
> (NO).
> Step 3. The NO stimulates an enzyme that causes cGMP to build up.
> Step 4. The cGMP reduces the calcium in the smooth muscle cells.
> Step 5. The smooth muscles relax allowing the corpus cavernosa to fill
> with blood.
> Step 6. The expanding blood vessels give off more NO, allowing the
> erection to maximize and sustain.
> Step 7. PDE-5 is activated and begins destroying cGMP.
> Step 8. (I'm not real clear on this part, but I think) After orgasm,
> the PDE-5 levels go very high, causing the erection to subside.
>
>
> The Viagra-type drugs start to do their job at step 7. They inhibit the
>
> effect of PDE-5 to allow the erection to maximize and sustain until
> orgasm. The problem is, after surgery, the neuropraxia disrupts the
> signal at step 1. Step 2 does not take place. So, no nitric oxide means
>
> no cGMP, means no erection and Viagra doesn't get a chance to do its
> job.
>
>
> The Trimix, on the other hand, skips steps 1 through 4. It starts at
> step 5. It effectively does the job of the cGMP, but is not suseptible
> to PDE-5. Since PDE-5 does not destroy the Trimix, the erection
> continues until the Trimix wears off. Neuropraxia or no neuropraxia, it
>
> works where Viagra will not.
>
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> John

gary wrote:
> John
> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
> it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
> releases nitrous oxide

I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go to
the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what happens
in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified diagram
showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond. See also
urology.jhu.edu/prostate/erectyle_dyssfunction.php which shows how the
cavernous (erectile) nerves run past the prostate to the penis. Upon
sexual stimulation (or during REM sleep) they release nitric oxide which
starts a complex biochemical process resulting in an erection.

Perhaps you are confused because the cavernous (erectile) nerves don't
pass through the prostate.

> i appreciate your info, but like others, it doesn't seem to address
> this erectile nerve in the nerve bundle.
> gary

Gary,

Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and
read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what you
need to know to start. If you have specific questions about treatment,
you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you are not a
medical professional, they are not going to be able to give you highly
technical explanations. Also, you should understand that without many
years of medical training, some things are just going to beyond you.
Each of us in such a situation will build up some sort of conceptual
model of what is going on, but it is usually not very accurate and may
entail serious misconceptions. This leads to a feeling of puzzlement
about some matters, but you just have to learn to live with that.

>
>

thank you Leonard
you have given the first explicit explanation i have seen describing
the erectile nerve.
i did review Walch's book and other books, but could not find an
explicit description and that it attaches to the penis. the book
talked about nerves but did not explicitly state the erectile nerve
from the nerve bundle releases the nitrous oxide.
it now makes sense to me to use the injections to speed my recovery
since it bypasses the erectile nerve (viagra depends on that nerve's
recovery) and releases chemicals to more naturally relax the muscles to
allow blood flow into the penis. the pump seems to bypasses the nerve
but does not relax the muscles for a natural blood flow. instead, it
sucks the blood into the penis without relaxing the muscles. relaxing
the muscles might be an important step in the recovery process since it
is a rehab process, like what is used when we rehab muscles in the gym.
it gets the those muscles working again.
gary

Leonard Evens wrote:
> gary wrote:
> > John
> > what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
> > it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
> > releases nitrous oxide
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go to
> the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what happens
> in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified diagram
> showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond. See also
> urology.jhu.edu/prostate/erectyle_dyssfunction.php which shows how the
> cavernous (erectile) nerves run past the prostate to the penis. Upon
> sexual stimulation (or during REM sleep) they release nitric oxide which
> starts a complex biochemical process resulting in an erection.
>
> Perhaps you are confused because the cavernous (erectile) nerves don't
> pass through the prostate.
>
> > i appreciate your info, but like others, it doesn't seem to address
> > this erectile nerve in the nerve bundle.
> > gary
>
> Gary,
>
> Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and
> read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what you
> need to know to start. If you have specific questions about treatment,
> you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you are not a
> medical professional, they are not going to be able to give you highly
> technical explanations. Also, you should understand that without many
> years of medical training, some things are just going to beyond you.
> Each of us in such a situation will build up some sort of conceptual
> model of what is going on, but it is usually not very accurate and may
> entail serious misconceptions. This leads to a feeling of puzzlement
> about some matters, but you just have to learn to live with that.
>
> >
> >

Leonard Evens wrote:
> gary wrote:
>> John
>> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
>> it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
>> releases nitrous oxide
>
> I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go to
> the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what happens
> in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified diagram
> showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond.

Nor can Gary.
Thus this thread.

> Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and
> read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what you
> need to know to start. If you have specific questions about treatment,
> you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you are not a
> medical professional, they are not going to be able to give you highly
> technical explanations. Also, you should understand that without many
> years of medical training, some things are just going to beyond you.

Every time I start digging deeply into even a small, discrete part of
our anatomy, such as an eye or an inner ear or a "simple" swatch of
muscle or skin, I'm always astounded. As I "unwrap" each new level of
complexity expecting to find simple bedrock, it just gets ever more, not
less, complex. It's like Lewis & Clark -- or maybe even an ant in some
cases -- walking west, expecting each new hilltop to reveal the mighty
Pacific, but instead revealing only bigger mountains to be crossed.

It all sort of makes this agnostic doubt evolution; biology is just too
dang complex to be due to survival of the fittest. It's also why med
school takes so many years and STILL produces only narrow specialists
and broad generalists, but no omniscient physicians.

I think Gary's allies are, in descending order, time, homework,
patience, chemical cocktails, and possibly ultimately a choice between
mechanical claptrap and acceptance. I doubt a DIY urology degree is
going to make any difference and suspect that research time may be
better spent in any of several other pursuits, from experimentation on
the immediate problem to adjuvant treatment research just-in-case.

When I want more horsepower or better handling or stability control or
Onstar, I buy a different car, not try to analyze and redesign the one I
have. We don't have either option in our pants. If your penile
performance doesn't resume 100%, remember: it's just one tool, not the
whole tool kit. You and your wife can still be running very smoothly
even if you've lost the best wrench from the kit, and odds are that
wrench will surface some time next year.

I.P.

I.P. Freely wrote:
> Leonard Evens wrote:
>> gary wrote:
>>> John
>>> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
>>> it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
>>> releases nitrous oxide
>>
>> I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go
>> to the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what
>> happens in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified
>> diagram showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond.
>
> Nor can Gary.
> Thus this thread.
>
>> Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer and
>> read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you what
>> you need to know to start. If you have specific questions about
>> treatment, you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you
>> are not a medical professional, they are not going to be able to give
>> you highly technical explanations. Also, you should understand that
>> without many years of medical training, some things are just going to
>> beyond you.
>
> Every time I start digging deeply into even a small, discrete part of
> our anatomy, such as an eye or an inner ear or a "simple" swatch of
> muscle or skin, I'm always astounded. As I "unwrap" each new level of
> complexity expecting to find simple bedrock, it just gets ever more, not
> less, complex. It's like Lewis & Clark -- or maybe even an ant in some
> cases -- walking west, expecting each new hilltop to reveal the mighty
> Pacific, but instead revealing only bigger mountains to be crossed.
>
> It all sort of makes this agnostic doubt evolution;biology is just too
> dang complex to be due to survival of the fittest. It's also why med
> school takes so many years and STILL produces only narrow specialists
> and broad generalists, but no omniscient physicians.

I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the
subject. I am not a biologist, but I am a professional mathematician.
Mathematics also involves subtleties and layers beneath layers and it
is often true that there are further mysteries to explore. Still, many
aspects are extremely well understood by those who have studied the
subject, although that may not be clear to the uninitiated. In some
ways, biology may be more complex, but I believe, for those who have
studied the subject, certain things are essentially beyond doubt. The
main facts of evolution are in this category. The term 'surivival of
the fittest' refers to the theory of natural selection, which explains
how changes are propagated. But the common understanding of that term
is wrong or incomplete in many aspects. Life forms are not 'fittest' in
any abstract sense. They are 'fit' in the sense that in the
environment they find themselves they are more likely to produce
descendants. A recent example is the discovery of certain genes in
herding populations in Africa which allow people to digest lactose after
infancy. These genes are different in different parts of Africa and
different from genes with the same function in northern European
populations. Such genes have arisen relatively recently, less than
6,000 years ago. One calculation showed that a parent with such a gene
in a population of herders had a 10 times advantage in number of
descendants. Given such an advantage you can see why lactose
intolerance would be uncommon in modern day descendants of such populations.

Also, other factors affect which genes survive and which don't. One
such, discovered already by Darwin, is sexual selection. This refers
to features which for whatever reason make potential breeders more
attractive to the opposite sex. The classic example is the peacock's
tail. This has no apparent advantage in finding food or escaping
predators. Its function is to impress peahens. There are several other
factors which affect how evolution unfolds.

Other explanations, such as 'intelligent design', have had no success in
explaining anything about how life evolves, and are rejected by all
serious biologists, whatever their religious orientation.


>

Leonard Evens wrote:
> I.P. Freely wrote:
>> Leonard Evens wrote:
>>> gary wrote:
>>>> John
>>>> what does the erectile nerve in the nerve bundle do?
>>>> it is not located in the penis, so it does not seem like the nerve that
>>>> releases nitrous oxide
>>>
>>> I don't know where you got the idea that the erectile nerves don't go
>>> to the penis. Of course, they do or else they couldn't affect what
>>> happens in the penis. www.phoenix5.org supposedly has a simplified
>>> diagram showing the erectile nerves, but I can't get it to respond.
>>
>> Nor can Gary.
>> Thus this thread.
>>
>>> Please get hold of Walsh's book Guide to Surviving Prostate Cancer
>>> and read his chapter on erectile dysfunction. He really tells you
>>> what you need to know to start. If you have specific questions about
>>> treatment, you should ask your doctors. But remember that since you
>>> are not a medical professional, they are not going to be able to give
>>> you highly technical explanations. Also, you should understand that
>>> without many years of medical training, some things are just going to
>>> beyond you.
>>
>> Every time I start digging deeply into even a small, discrete part of
>> our anatomy, such as an eye or an inner ear or a "simple" swatch of
>> muscle or skin, I'm always astounded. As I "unwrap" each new level of
>> complexity expecting to find simple bedrock, it just gets ever more,
>> not less, complex. It's like Lewis & Clark -- or maybe even an ant in
>> some cases -- walking west, expecting each new hilltop to reveal the
>> mighty Pacific, but instead revealing only bigger mountains to be
>> crossed.
>>
>> It all sort of makes this agnostic doubt evolution;biology is just too
>> dang complex to be due to survival of the fittest. It's also why med
>> school takes so many years and STILL produces only narrow specialists
>> and broad generalists, but no omniscient physicians.
>
> I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the
> subject.

Far enough to make my point that the layers of complexity are so deep
and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural
selection within the allotted time. That man doesn't yet understand
every subtlety of the human body is simply a gross measure of its
complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to
comprehend.

> The term 'surivival of
> the fittest' refers to the theory of natural selection, which explains
> how changes are propagated. But the common understanding of that term
> is wrong or incomplete in many aspects. Life forms are not 'fittest' in
> any abstract sense. They are 'fit' in the sense that in the
> environment they find themselves they are more likely to produce
> descendants.

Precisely why I employed the term.

I.P.

I.P. Freely wrote:

>> I think all this means is that you haven't gone far enough into the
>> subject.
>
> Far enough to make my point that the layers of complexity are so deep
> and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural
> selection within the allotted time. That man doesn't yet understand
> every subtlety of the human body is simply a gross measure of its
> complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to
> comprehend.

I understand that you find the arguments for evolutions through natural
selection within the available time unconvincing. I on the other hand
find the arguments for natural selection and the other mechanisms
extremely convincing. But neither of us is a trained biologist. So our
opinions don't really count. The important thing to remember is that
essentially all the scientists with training in this flied find that the
evidence is overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and
other mechanisms, such as those I mentioned.

By the way, 3 to 4 billion years is a REAL LONG TIME. But even
restricting attention to our species, research has shown that features
can evolve in a surprisingly short time. If lactose tolerance can
develop among herders in a few thousand years, it is not hard to believe
that the other characteristics of our species which distinguish us from
our closest relatives, the chimpanzees, could have developed over
millions of years.

>
>> The term 'surivival of the fittest' refers to the theory of natural
>> selection, which explains how changes are propagated. But the common
>> understanding of that term is wrong or incomplete in many aspects.
>> Life forms are not 'fittest' in any abstract sense. They are 'fit'
>> in the sense that in the environment they find themselves they are
>> more likely to produce descendants.
>
> Precisely why I employed the term.
>
> I.P.

Leonard Evens wrote:
> I.P. Freely wrote:
>> the layers of complexity are so deep
>> and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural
>> selection within the allotted time. That man doesn't yet understand
>> every subtlety of the human body is simply a gross measure of its
>> complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to
>> comprehend.
>
> The important thing to remember is that
> essentially all the scientists with training in this flied find that the
> evidence is overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and
> other mechanisms, such as those I mentioned.

I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are
convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design.

I.P.

> Leonard Evens wrote:

>> The important thing to remember is that essentially all the scientists
>> with training in this flied find that the evidence is overwhelming for
>> evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms, such as those I
>> mentioned.

>> I.P. Freely wrote:

> I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are
> convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design.
>
> I.P.

Uh, Oh!

JerryW wrote:
>> Leonard Evens wrote:
>
>>> The important thing to remember is that essentially all the scientists
>>> with training in this flied find that the evidence is overwhelming for
>>> evolution through natural selection and other mechanisms, such as those I
>>> mentioned.
>
>>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>
>> I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are
>> convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design.
>>
>> I.P.
>
> Uh, Oh!

Don't sweat it, Jerry. I got no dog -- or interest -- in this topic.
It's going nowhere on my account. '-)

I.P.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:45:20 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>Leonard Evens wrote:
>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>>> the layers of complexity are so deep
>>> and intricate that I question their natural evolution by natural
>>> selection within the allotted time. That man doesn't yet understand
>>> every subtlety of the human body is simply a gross measure of its
>>> complexity, not an indication of divine design or man's inability to
>>> comprehend.
>>
>> The important thing to remember is that
>> essentially all the scientists with training in this flied find that the
>> evidence is overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and
>> other mechanisms, such as those I mentioned.
>
>I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are
>convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design.
>
>I.P.


How does taking something complex, such as our bodies or a honeybee,
and to explain that complexity add something even MORE complex, a
supreme being, how does that do anything but add MORE complexity to
the whole thing???

doubleowseven@theplacecalledyahoo.com wrote:
>
>
> How does taking something complex, such as our bodies or a honeybee,
> and to explain that complexity add something even MORE complex, a
> supreme being, how does that do anything but add MORE complexity to
> the whole thing???

It does. But then a supreme being theoretically had more time to evolve
than did mammals, so who knows? No one, from the Pope to raging atheist
Michael Newdow, can prove his position, so the debate is academic.

I.P.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:00:01 -0800, "I.P. Freely"
<fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote:

>It does. But then a supreme being theoretically had more time to evolve

Can a supreme being evolve? From what? Wouldn't the progenitor be
'more' supreme? Which theory do you mean?

>than did mammals, so who knows? No one, from the Pope to raging atheist
>Michael Newdow, can prove his position, so the debate is academic.

Academic or not, when a debate entails faulty reasoning or fails to
strike a fair balance - as appears to be the case in ID vs evolution -
then it should be exposed. Science should never be dogged by the
idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
for its own sake might be valueless.

> Science should never be dogged by the
> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
> for its own sake might be valueless.

I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution
of man.

Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
Sundays.

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:37:23 -0500, "Steve Kramer"
<skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:

>
>> Science should never be dogged by the
>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>
>I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution
>of man.

Why hold back? - demand also a complete formulation of the physical
world, and demand it NOW!.

OR

Note the sure, steady progress of science over the centuries and be
patient. True the onion may be huge even infinite but peeling off
successive layers can be enlightening, even ennobling.

>
>Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
>Sundays.
>
I see what you mean.

There are places science shouldn't go. It should be cowed by dispute
and concede defeat when its best efforts fail. Shrink also from
reflection and all philosophical endeavour - they lead nowhere.

I.P. Freely wrote:
> Leonard Evens wrote:
>> I.P. Freely wrote:
>>> the layers of complexity are so deep and intricate that I question
>>> their natural evolution by natural selection within the allotted
>>> time. That man doesn't yet understand every subtlety of the human
>>> body is simply a gross measure of its complexity, not an indication
>>> of divine design or man's inability to comprehend.
>>
>> The important thing to remember is that essentially all the
>> scientists with training in this flied find that the evidence is
>> overwhelming for evolution through natural selection and other
>> mechanisms, such as those I mentioned.
>
> I've read just the opposite, that many scientists in many fields are
> convinced by the complexity of nature that it testifies to supreme design.

Scientists in fields outside biology, paleontology, etc. are not
particularly qualified to judge the matter. Also, it all depends on
what you mean by "supreme design". One can believe in that as an
abstract philosophical principle but still believe that life evolved on
Earth by means of natural processes such as natural selection without
intervention by an "intelligent designer", either God or
superintelligent aliens. An example of someone who believes that is
Francis Collins, who was in charge of the US human genome mapping
project, and there are a few other qualified scientists with the same
philosophy. But originally, it was evolution through natural selection
that you questioned. And virtually no scientists in relevant fields
questions that.

It is important to understand such distinctions because there is an
ongoing effort, which is effective politically, to introduce religious
beliefs such as "intelligent design" in the teaching of science in our
public schools. Such ideas are not science and have no place in a
biology curriculum. US citizens are woefully ignorant of science, and
efforts to inject religion into the teaching of science hardly improve
that deplorable situation.

>
> I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
>> Science should never be dogged by the
>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>
> I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution
> of man.

Where do you propose to start? If you mean to start with the first life
on Earth, that was something close to 4 billion years ago. If you mean
to go back to the our last common ancestor with the chimpanzees, that
was several million years ago. To replicate what happened over these
times would of course take the same amount of time, so it is obviously
impossible to achieve in the laboratory. That doesn't mean it is not
well understood. By studying DNA, biologists have been making amazing
progress in understanding in a fairly detailed way how humans evolved,
something which no one would have believed possible before the discovery
of the the genetic code.

Let's take a different example. No one thinks scientists are capable of
creating a solar system identical to ours in the laboratory. But that
doesn't mean that the basic structure and dynamics of the solar system
aren't well understood. Similarly, no one can create a star in the
laboratory, but the structure and evolution of stars are quite well
understood. Of course, not everything is known about these subjects,
but we will never know absolutely everything about any reasonably
complex subject. that doesn't mean the scientific method doesn't apply.

>
> Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
> Sundays.

Does your religious belief depend on there being gaps on scientific
knowledge? O worse believing things that are patently false, such as
that the Earth is 6,000 years old? If so, it must be pretty fragile and
subject to disruption from the latest scientific advance. I think most
religious believers are flexible enough in their beliefs so that they
can also accept what science shows us. The facts of human evolution, in
particular, are very important for medical science, and few of us would
reject a treatment based on such insights because it contradicted some
religious belief.


>
>

rosbif wrote:

> Academic or not, when a debate entails faulty reasoning or fails to
> strike a fair balance - as appears to be the case in ID vs evolution -
> then it should be exposed. Science should never be dogged by the
> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
> for its own sake might be valueless.

Except that
a) I don't have the time to debate esoterica at length,
b) this ain't the place for it,
c) by "academic" in this context I mean "of no practical use", and
d) we are not going to resolve issues this big here, after at least a
couple of sound thinkers have beat this horse to death long ago. Heck,
I'll bet this was debated way back in the 20th century. ;-)

Probably the most practical application of all this is in today's
schools, as Leonard pointed out. If I had kids in school, my concern
would be far more immediate and real. One thing's for dang sure -- if
the horror stories I read and hear about today's U.S. public schools are
true -- my kids would not be in government (i.e., public) schools.
Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but
destroyed them as learning institutions.

I.P.

Steve Kramer wrote:
>> Science should never be dogged by the
>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>
> I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the evolution
> of man.
>
> Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
> Sundays.
>
>
But are evolution and divine creation at odds? To me they co-exist,
unless we're to believe that Adam and Eve were a 5'10" and 5'4" couple
with expected lifespans of 80 and 72 with an SUV and a minivan in the
driveway. IOW, why couldn't a supreme being have designed evolution as
part of her plan?

I.P.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:RxWih.20$N45.3@newsfe03.lga...
> rosbif wrote:

> Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but
> destroyed them as learning institutions.

Now, IP, this is the kind of over-the-top statement that does nothing for
this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the problem. I
wish you would confine your comments to PCa.

<rosbif> wrote in message news:q2jno2hi79td0u3dokh44usg9urf473h4n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 06:37:23 -0500, "Steve Kramer"
> <skramer@cinci.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Science should never be dogged by the
>>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>>
>>I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the
>>evolution
>>of man.
>
> Why hold back? - demand also a complete formulation of the physical
> world, and demand it NOW!.
>
> OR
>
> Note the sure, steady progress of science over the centuries and be
> patient. True the onion may be huge even infinite but peeling off
> successive layers can be enlightening, even ennobling.
>
>>
>>Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
>>Sundays.
>>
> I see what you mean.
>
> There are places science shouldn't go. It should be cowed by dispute
> and concede defeat when its best efforts fail. Shrink also from
> reflection and all philosophical endeavour - they lead nowhere.
>

I think you missed my point. Darn shame too, because I thought it rather
clever.

When stated that it was "academic", IP clearly meant that the debate of it
is relatively useless considering the time it would take to A) debate it,
and then B) prove it. (Maybe less useless in another newsgroup or milieu)

The supernatural cannot be proven by the natural. Science deals in the
realm of the natural and faith in the supernatural. Discussion of the
difference can sometimes be fascinating, but will always be outside the
scope of science and faith and clearly within the scope of philosophy.

Some day, of course, we may gather so much knowledge -- say equal to the
omniscient being we call God -- and prove it wrong. But, we have been
trying since the time of Adam and Eve and failing miserably. Until we do,
it will not be science and will be merely academic.

Or, as happens many, many times everyday, people die and find out it was
right. But, since they can't tell us, it's... well... academic.

"Leonard Evens" <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:rtmdnRYFo9d7dBbYnZ2dnUVZ_ternZ2d@comcast.com. ..

> US citizens are woefully ignorant of science, and efforts to inject
> religion into the teaching of science hardly improve that deplorable
> situation.

Whether it is woeful, I do not know, but you said succintly half of what it
just took me paragraphs to say; the other half merely being, "and visa
versa".

"Leonard Evens" <len@math.northwestern.edu> wrote in message
news:u9adnYmSOc-tcxbYnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>> Science should never be dogged by the
>>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>>
>> I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the
>> evolution of man.
>
> Where do you propose to start?

Again, I thought it was clever. But, if YOU didn't get it, then I have
failed utterly.

No matter. You summed it up pretty well in your post.

> if the horror stories I read and hear about today's U.S. public schools
> are true -- my kids would not be in government (i.e., public) schools.
> Apparently the teachers' unions and political correctness have all but
> destroyed them as learning institutions.

They are true. My wife was a teach, indeed a science teacher... actually,
retired as a supervisor of entire science program of the 2nd largest school
district on this state. It is an absolute travesty what unions, lawyers,
politicians, California text book makers, etc. are doing to are schools.
And then there are some parents.....




--
PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46
Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c
RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins
PSA .1 .1 .1 .27 .37 .75
EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47
PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32
Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 (4 mo), 12/03, 4/04, 09/04, 01/05, 5/05, 10/05,
2/06, 6/06
PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145
Casodex added daily 07/06
PSA <0.04
Non Illegitimi Carborundum

"Claude" <claude@hatesspam.com> wrote in message
news:458c3fff$0$11136$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Now, IP, this is the kind of over-the-top statement that does nothing for
> this forum and angers some of us who see other aspects of the problem. I
> wish you would confine your comments to PCa.

Ooops. In that case, let me retract my last statement. It's 100% accurate,
but I do not mean to offend.

"I.P. Freely" <fuhgheddaboutit@noway.nohow> wrote in message
news:_CWih.23$N45.7@newsfe03.lga...
> Steve Kramer wrote:
>>> Science should never be dogged by the
>>> idea that anything is 'academic', or by the fear that understanding
>>> for its own sake might be valueless.
>>
>> I concur. Using the scientific method, go ahead and replicate the
>> evolution of man.
>>
>> Get back to me on that, would you. Sure would save me a lot of time on
>> Sundays.
> But are evolution and divine creation at odds? To me they co-exist, unless
> we're to