Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

Agreed. One needs a different reason to be doing this than trying to teach those who resist learning, like the creationists, and I'll bet you have a few. I do. I didn't view Claddy that way. The Helen Keller analogy was apt in my opinion. Helen didn't fight learning. She was difficult to get through to for other reasons, and I was hoping to do something similar for him. He's not the first poster I've tried that with and failed.

But mostly, I post for people like you, and your posting is useful to me. Your recent summary posts were a nice recap of the discussion to date. You're somebody who can find meaning in my words and possibly some value - maybe a new fact, maybe a new way to present an old idea, maybe a different attitude or disposition in posting, maybe a turn of phrase ("turn of phrase" is a pretty good one). We learn from one another even if those we address directly don't benefit.

I don't feel the need to correct the deliberately scientifically unknowing as much as I do those who demean atheism or empiricism (scientism, they scoffingly call it), or who claim reason and evidence underlie their faith-based beliefs. Those posters can generally expect a reply from me every time, but there is a limited number of times one should respond to "but they're still bacteria," which I recently ignored upon reading.

The bee isn't using logic, just instinct. Instinct isn't logical. Nature isn't logical. Logic belongs to reasoning minds, minds that actively make decisions based on circumstances and understanding (prior experience). We may say that nature seems logical to us - mathematical even - but that doesn't mean nature uses logic or math to keep planets in orbit around their stars, for example.

Fuzzy. What does that word mean? As you say, it can be understood in more than one way. It describes some caterpillars. It describes the way one might feel when light-headed. How can we decide? Individual words have fuzzy meanings, but strung together by a competent linguist, they can become increasingly specific and their fuzziness approach zero to an alert (not fuzzy-headed), competent reader or listener.

You reminded me of something I learned about the origins of classical music in the West, which arose principally in the Germans (including the Austrians) and the Italians, the former pioneering instrumental music (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart) and the latter more focused on opera (Verdi, Puccini).

I was taught that this was because German is a guttural, staccato language (mach schnell!) and more difficult to sing, whereas Italian is mellifluous to the point that speaking it sounds like singing (atsa espicia meataballa - English, not Italian, but you get my point).

Maybe. An interesting idea. There's some cross-over. Germans wrote opera (Wagner, Mozart), too, likely following the Italian's lead, and Italians wrote instrumental music (Vivaldi, Monteverdi), but I think the observation is valid.

You cannot teach people that appear to believe they know everything and that everything supports their conclusions to the exclusion of what others have demonstrated.

Like anyone, I don't like to be shown to be wrong, but if I'm true to my values of scholarship, discussion and debate, I have to acknowledge those times and learn from them. We have had discussions about the application of allegory that I still think about and consider in the ongoing development of my views on the subject. But that is based on providing the information we both use to draw our conclusions and how we did that.

For instance, if I were to tell you that Darwin was wrong and the theory of evolution is wrong by a claim that all his premises were wrong, I would list those premises and point out where and why I thought they were wrong. If I claimed that two of those premises were that populations were stable and something about instinct and your response was, "Dan, instinct isn't a premise Darwin used in formulating a theory of evolution and assuming population stability doesn't make sense. Stable populations aren't found to exhibit the change expressed in the evidence". Good scholarship, the principles of debate and my duty to support my position would prompt me to review of what I had stated. Upon finding you correct, I would have to acknowledge that.

I don't see that from the opposition on this thread. I see people whose apparent premise is that they know all and don't have to support what they claim. What they believe is axiomatic by the fact they believe it.

Instead, we get word games, tactics, massive repetition and no evidence or experiment ever offered in support of those claims.

I can't imagine spending the time trying to teach minds so confident in the superiority of their own belief that they are obviously closed to learning from others. Yet obviously I have tried and still do. Even with this post, for instance. If only it is to correct those errors presented in heavy rotation with evidence and logic. But I do find it frustrating to share knowledge and be so openly disrespected for doing that. I also find it ironic and amusing that the methodology of the denial we encounter fits historical precedents that I think those closed minds would be appalled to find they are mimicking with great affinity.

The observed behavior does prompt questions about and careful examination of my own views. There is some great value in that. Sadly that doesn't appear to be a universal trait shared by the closed mind. It is a vastly different state to stand one's ground on the soundness of conclusions based on logic, evidence and understanding, while being open to correction compared to a closed position resonating around a core of irrational, un-examined belief, poor understanding and ignorance where the unspoken demand is that all must adhere to that position as a "true" representation of reality.

Darwin was wrong, because all his premises were wrong. But none of those premises are ever listed and no argument is presented to show where and why they are wrong. The claim is merely repeated in heavy rotation and corrections that do list those premises and point to the fact that they are sound and why are ignored.

All change in living things is sudden and when challenged the claim is rationalized by comparing it to cosmological events that occur over eons without effectively acknowledging that the comparison is meaningless when the fact remains that all change in living things varies in time across a range.

I am confident that I have not seen any valid evidence or experiment to support the many claims I have seen regarding beavers, agriculture, bee dancing or the Broca's area from sources that claim only to accept that which is supported by experiment as "true" science.

How can you make conclusions about a region of the brain without any historical evidence of that region or its origins? How would one have any confidence that such claims are more than just some personal belief held in ignorance and what appears to be a steadfast adherence to the unsupported idea that the person claiming it believes they know? How are they not attempting to make inferences in light of the fact that they claim only to deduce?

Or fish are still fish.

An examination of the geological composition of this Earth reveals that at one time their was no life. Examining more recent, but still very ancient strata shows the evidence of living things in microorganisms. Continuing to the more recent, we see prokaryotic microorganisms and more complex life. Then we see those bacteria and ancient eukaryotes. Then bacteria, basic eukaryotes and more complex eukaryotes. More recent still, bacteria, complex invertebrates and early vertebrates. Further along as we grow nearer the present, we see the prokaryotes, invertebrates and vertebrates, including fish. And so on we progress through the strata finding deletions, retention and additions until we reach today with the variety of life the evidence clearly shows had origins and once did not exist as it does. So, fish remaining fish is meaningless both from the theory and upon the evidence.

Yet that claim keeps getting repeated as if it means something.

The extraction process with a closed mind is frustrating and difficult, but even there something can be learned.

I appreciate your attempts to find a better approach to reach through the barriers, and I definitely enjoy reading the attempts.

 

[John53]

Nature is fascinating.

Yes it is.

But no matter how complex a behavior wired into a conscious individual a member of his species had to invent that behavior. Nature can't just hand down because there is no evidence it is conscious. Magical beliefs are almost impossible to avoid in our species. And once they are acquired they usually last a lifetime. No bee believes in science or God. None of their behavior or nature was necessarily handed down from on high.

The rest is incoherent. I suspect because this is the internet that it is Poe's law or trolling. If someone approached me in real life speaking like that I would suspect their sanity.

 

[John53]

I'm fascinated too. There seems to be a lot of work on it involving avian migration behavior. I recall reading about experiments in a migratory bird species that had different populations that flew different routes out of Africa when migrating to different parts of Europe. If you swapped fertile eggs between populations, the resulting offspring would migrate as usual, but would use the instinctual route map and end up in the wrong locations. Their migratory pattern was the same as the population the eggs came from, but with the wrong starting point.

There is a lot that remains to be studied and one of those subjects that I've been interested in, but had little time to pursue.

How does this behavior evolve and how does it spread and persist without being taught?

It is a fascinating subject.

I've read a few studies and been told of others but they are hard to track down. A lot of the ones done on migratory waders that I've read are more concerned with trying to protect them rather than going into behaviour. They do need protecting, I suspect several species will go extinct in the next 10 years. So that's more important than my curiosity.

I remembering reading that the migratory waders have one of the smallest brains in the bird world. It makes me wonder if intelligence has anything to do with instinct. Us humans are the most intelligent species (supposedly) and we have few instincts.

 

[John53]

There is a lot that remains to be studied and one of those subjects that I've been interested in, but had little time to pursue.

How does this behavior evolve and how does it spread and persist without being taught?

How it evolved is a complete mystery to me. I understand the logic behind it, there is a small window in the Arctic regions when food is abundant and conditions are ideal for successful breeding then you head off before it becomes uninhabitable. But how evolved is a complete mystery (to me at least). The other option is ID which makes no sense to me either, why would an intelligent designer bother with something like this. And sometimes the wiring goes wrong, we get the odd vagrant species from time to time that should be no where near the Southern Hemisphere. About 5 years ago Aleutian Terns were spotted not too far from where I live and they've been coming back every year since (I'm unsure of any reports this year). Perhaps there is some knowledge to be gained from this handful of birds as to how migration patters start. The other thing I find interesting was the human reaction to these birds, bird nerds came from everywhere to see them, I saw one estimate that in the first year alone it was worth about a million dollars to the local economy.

Another that baffles me is the Monarch Butterfly migration. I don't know much about it but I've read that the migration takes more than one generation to complete. I'm having a hard time explaining what I mean. The Monarchs that leave Mexico are not the same Monarchs that arrive in California.

Edit to correct: They estimated the Terns added $200 thousand to $390 thousand to the economy. My memory isn't as good as I thought.

 

[gnostic]

Nature is fascinating.

But no matter how complex a behavior wired into a conscious individual a member of his species had to invent that behavior. Nature can't just hand down because there is no evidence it is conscious. Magical beliefs are almost impossible to avoid in our species. And once they are acquired they usually last a lifetime. No bee believes in science or God. None of their behavior or nature was necessarily handed down from on high.

only the first paragraph I can agree on.

the rest of the post is just pure gibberish And straw man.

 

[cladking]

You know that, but apparently are OK with it. I've discussed how you can change that with you, but you've never responded to those comments, so I can only assume that either you are content with how things are or, if not, that you believe you can change them by continuing on as before. What you describe will never change until you do. I've said that to you a couple of times, but you don't seem interested in discussing it whether to agree or to disagree for whatever your reasons.

I'm not certain what you mean but if I could think like you do then I could talk like you do and might never have made these (re)discoveries. And if I made them anyway I might not be able to communicate with you anyway since everyone in a conversation must meet one another half way.

You do realize that my theory required a great deal of generalized knowledge which is not taught in any university at all and the ability to reverse engineer physical objects which is not an extremely common ability. It requires a kind of penchant for language that isn't taught in linguistics and is acquired largely through experience. Mostly it required working search engines that existed only from about 2004 to June of 2023.

If I believed in science we would be talking about what a genius Darwin was rather than his bad assumptions (chapter 7 was about "instinct" by the by) and his untested conclusions. We all reason in circles just like Darwin but my assumptions were apparently true unlike Darwin. Mebbe reality really does exist just as it is perceived by people.

I'd appreciate an elaboration or explanation but will understand if none is forthcoming.

 

[cladking]

OK. I trust mine, and for good reason.

Everyone has the very best of reasons.

If you can't say the same for your beliefs, then you are correct to not rely on them being accurate or useful. You still haven't solved the problem you complain about most - being misunderstood.

I embrace my ignorance. My models generate courses of action and identify anomalies. They do not eliminate any ignorance.

You still haven't solved the problem you complain about most - being misunderstood.

I've said many times that my theory is an holistic pattern for understanding reality and people simply won't accept any point. Despite its ability to make prediction they discount it. Despite its ability to explain more evidence, more experiment, and eliminate most anomalies they treat it as a series of crackpot hypotheses that are untested and unsupported. This has less to do with communication than with beliefs.

Whatever your approach to solving it isn't working, so you are correct to recognize that it's not a trustworthy method and to not trust it, but you also don't seem to have much interest in finding a better idea, either - one that works for you.

I still talk the way I did when I was three. It's the only way I know. It's been some years since I've had the ability to change it and I have no desire now.

All true knowledge is experiential and most of the tiny amount of knowledge I have is experiential.

Here's another characteristic of consciousness that can be ignored; Consciousness organizes experiential knowledge much like humans build models of their beliefs. This organization requires a reordering of the brain and/ or the life of the individual. Experience is the primary driver of behavior thereby. A bird flying half way across the world isn't thinking "instinct, instinct do do do". It is consciously seeking wind and cloud to make its endeavor as easy and comfortable as possible. But it doesn't even know it's thinking. It just does it. Darwin was very very wrong. Humans are in many ways less conscious than most species because we are like sleep walkers driven by what we believe to be true.

 

[cladking]

How can you make conclusions about a region of the brain without any historical evidence of that region or its origins? How would one have any confidence that such claims are more than just some personal belief held in ignorance and what appears to be a steadfast adherence to the unsupported idea that the person claiming it believes they know? How are they not attempting to make inferences in light of the fact that they claim only to deduce?

Nobody knows. How am I supposed to know?

I am merely suggesting a possibility for what makes us the way we are based on experiment and deduction. That it is complex language that underlies humanity is very apparent and that it is not recognized by science is just another reason to doubt the accuracy of what many call "science". Obviously if the nature of complex language changed for the only species on the planet that used complex language it might have a highly dramatic effect on the species and be evidenced exactly as reality exists.

I've studied thought my whole life. Is it really impossible I could be right about some things? Why didn't Darwin see cleverness and cooperation everywhere he looked as I do? Why did he believe in "intelligence"? His erroneous assumptions hid everything from him that didn't suit his beliefs.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How it evolved is a complete mystery to me. I understand the logic behind it, there is a small window in the Arctic regions when food is abundant and conditions are ideal for successful breeding then you head off before it becomes uninhabitable. But how evolved is a complete mystery (to me at least).

I'm not up on the latest research either and it largely remains a mystery to me as well.

I can see the reason that the behavior allows a species of bird to exploit a resource that is only available briefly. Little or no predation and little or no competition. That makes sense and are some of the environmental conditions selecting the behavior.

I'm speculating, but changes in photoperiod, temperature or some other seasonal factor may effect the initiation time of the trait.

The other option is ID which makes no sense to me either, why would an intelligent designer bother with something like this.

A creator could do as they choose and we have no way of knowing that they did or didn't do something. It is a belief that doesn't explain. My personal belief is that God created things, but that doesn't tell us anything about what is going on with migration in birds or butterflies.

As you pointed out and what was integral to the experiment I mentioned, is that teaching doesn't appear to be involved.

Birds can fly and travel much greater distances than a lot of animals, so finding a spot and returning to it are certainly facilitated by their flight ability.

And sometimes the wiring goes wrong, we get the odd vagrant species from time to time that should be no where near the Southern Hemisphere. About 5 years ago Aleutian Terns were spotted not too far from where I live and they've been coming back every year since (I'm unsure of any reports this year). Perhaps there is some knowledge to be gained from this handful of birds as to how migration patters start. The other thing I find interesting was the human reaction to these birds, bird nerds came from everywhere to see them, I saw one estimate that in the first year alone it was worth about a million dollars to the local economy.

Some of that may have explanations in weather patterns, but sometimes a bird probably isn't wired right and gets off course. I don't recall all the details and I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search, but years ago, maybe the 80's or 90's, some Siberian bird showed up in the Ozarks and had all the birds world agog and rushing to see it. While looking for some hint of that old story, I found stories about a Brown Booby visiting the Ozarks in 2020.

Those outliers happen and continue to I would say.

The terns are interesting for appearing to establish a pattern.

Another that baffles me is the Monarch Butterfly migration. I don't know much about it but I've read that the migration takes more than one generation to complete. I'm having a hard time explaining what I mean. The Monarchs that leave Mexico are not the same Monarchs that arrive in California.

So, the monarch in the US has two populations. A western population centered around California that moves within the state and neighboring states and the larger migratory population that moves back and forth between the the eastern 2/3 of US and southern Canada and a small area of Mexico. Migratory behavior exists in both populations, but the spectacular journey is made by the larger population. The western population overwinters in California. The large eastern population overwinters in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico in about dozen spots in States of Mexico and Michoacan.

Adults will start moving north in the spring and have a total of four generations counting the generation that migrates up from Mexico. This varies with the region, but it is the last generation in the US that makes the return trip.

Since they are multigenerational, the ones that migrate north are not teaching the ones that migrate south, not to mention that teaching isn't something one sees in insects. So, despite the claim of some internet oracles that know all they make up, teaching doesn't seem to be involved in the process.

It is pretty amazing and of great concern to conservationists and nature enthusiasts, not in the loss of the monarch, but in the loss of the unique behavior. The entire population could be decimated by destroying a very small area of Mexico.

Edit to correct: They estimated the Terns added $200 thousand to $390 thousand to the economy. My memory isn't as good as I thought.

Still, it is good for the economy. Every dollar helps. Even Australian dollars.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've read a few studies and been told of others but they are hard to track down.

If I can find the references to the study I mentioned, I'll pass it along. Or anything else I may find relevant to the subject.

A lot of the ones done on migratory waders that I've read are more concerned with trying to protect them rather than going into behaviour.

Migratory species are particularly vulnerable by the fact that they migrate. Damage to one of the destinations can have a detrimental impact on them that can be lasting. And they go into countries that have varying levels of protection. While I am interested in conservation too, I see what you mean regarding information on the behavior itself.

They do need protecting, I suspect several species will go extinct in the next 10 years. So that's more important than my curiosity.

That is sad, but I would say that your curiosity and that of millions of others are needed to facilitate protecting them. The less people pay attention the more likely they are to be lost.

I remembering reading that the migratory waders have one of the smallest brains in the bird world. It makes me wonder if intelligence has anything to do with instinct. Us humans are the most intelligent species (supposedly) and we have few instincts.

Apparently intelligence or the poor application of it has little to do with a lot of things. Other factors were more important to survival, so the most fit members of the populations ancestors didn't waste energy on brains.

 

[John53]

I'm not up on the latest research either and it largely remains a mystery to me as well.

I can see the reason that the behavior allows a species of bird to exploit a resource that is only available briefly. Little or no predation and little or no competition. That makes sense and are some of the environmental conditions selecting the behavior.

I'm speculating, but changes in photoperiod, temperature or some other seasonal factor may effect the initiation time of the trait.

A creator could do as they choose and we have no way of knowing that they did or didn't do something. It is a belief that doesn't explain. My personal belief is that God created things, but that doesn't tell us anything about what is going on with migration in birds or butterflies.

As you pointed out and what was integral to the experiment I mentioned, is that teaching doesn't appear to be involved.

Birds can fly and travel much greater distances than a lot of animals, so finding a spot and returning to it are certainly facilitated by their flight ability.

Some of that may have explanations in weather patterns, but sometimes a bird probably isn't wired right and gets off course. I don't recall all the details and I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search, but years ago, maybe the 80's or 90's, some Siberian bird showed up in the Ozarks and had all the birds world agog and rushing to see it. While looking for some hint of that old story, I found stories about a Brown Booby visiting the Ozarks in 2020.

Those outliers happen and continue to I would say.

The terns are interesting for appearing to establish a pattern.

So, the monarch in the US has two populations. A western population centered around California that moves within the state and neighboring states and the larger migratory population that moves back and forth between the the eastern 2/3 of US and southern Canada and a small area of Mexico. Migratory behavior exists in both populations, but the spectacular journey is made by the larger population. The western population overwinters in California. The large eastern population overwinters in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico in about dozen spots in States of Mexico and Michoacan.

Adults will start moving north in the spring and have a total of four generations counting the generation that migrates up from Mexico. This varies with the region, but it is the last generation in the US that makes the return trip.

Since they are multigenerational, the ones that migrate north are not teaching the ones that migrate south, not to mention that teaching isn't something one sees in insects. So, despite the claim of some internet oracles that know all they make up, teaching doesn't seem to be involved in the process.

It is pretty amazing and of great concern to conservationists and nature enthusiasts, not in the loss of the monarch, but in the loss of the unique behavior. The entire population could be decimated by destroying a very small area of Mexico.

Still, it is good for the economy. Every dollar helps. Even Australian dollars.

The only problem about having a discussion with someone who is reasonable and knowledgeable on the topic is that I can never think of anything to respond with other than I agree. Maybe you could be a bit more considerate and make up some new meanings for words or invent some strange ideas and promote them as fact.

Anyway today I looked into the Aleutian Terns and found one person was asking similar questions as we are, he received no responses to his questions. He wondered if it could be simply a gap in observations, perhaps the Manning River area has always been visited by Aleutian Terns. Which kind of makes sense because Terns are not easy to ID and it's not a single lost bird but a flock of up to 24. Climate change and loss of feeding grounds causing them to move further south and east were his other guesses. Most people were just interested in getting a tick on their bird list and don't seem that interested in the why are these birds thousands of kilometres outside their usual range.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The only problem about having a discussion with someone who is reasonable and knowledgeable on the topic is that I can never think of anything to respond with other than I agree. Maybe you could be a bit more considerate and make up some new meanings for words or invent some strange ideas and promote them as fact.

Bologna is migratory and my Ancient Hunter ancestors used to follow the herds and live off of them. They would eat the meat and use the red hide to make clothes to wear in caves to write Og was here. In Ancient Hunter that translates to this: <@@ ^≥!__7. Then one of the bologna taught the other bologna not to migrate and it was all over for my people and they had to build retail outlets using slings made from their old underwear and drag rocks over an infinite number of parking lots to get the extra values.

Anyway today I looked into the Aleutian Terns and found one person was asking similar questions as we are, he received no responses to his questions. He wondered if it could be simply a gap in observations, perhaps the Manning River area has always been visited by Aleutian Terns. Which kind of makes sense because Terns are not easy to ID and it's not a single lost bird but a flock of up to 24. Climate change and loss of feeding grounds causing them to move further south and east were his other guesses. Most people were just interested in getting a tick on their bird list and don't seem that interested in the why are these birds thousands of kilometres outside their usual range.

I'm interested and I think climate change has a lot to do with it. It is anecdotal, but I believe we are starting to see more of these sorts of out of place sightings. Roadrunners are a predominantly southwestern species, but they have been known from the extreme southwest of Missouri as occasional visitors. Now days, I believe they are nesting in that part of our state and I have seen them several times while there. When I was growing up, armadillos were speculated to be in Missouri, but they were not here. In the 90's they started moving into the area and are as far north as St Louis now.

Promachus vertebratus is a very large, really large, species of robber fly from the south western US. A friend of mine was the first person to identify it in Missouri as new to the state. I've seen it myself in the south western corner of the state. Pretty spectacular. Another species, Trichiotinus lunulatus, a really pretty, emerald green scarab beetle is from the southern quarter of the US and not previously known in Missouri, but I found it here in the last 10 years.

Now, the insects are somewhat more difficult to make a call on, since it could be an artifact of collecting, but as more of these show up, it casts doubt on that qualification and becomes more likely evidence for migration due to climate change.

What I have been wondering about lately are those animals that we are less inclined to enjoy for their expanding range. Cottonmouths are a semi-aquatic pit viper related to our copperhead. In Missouri, they are not found north of the Missouri River, but that could change much to the surprise of local communities where they are presently unknown.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've read a few studies and been told of others but they are hard to track down. A lot of the ones done on migratory waders that I've read are more concerned with trying to protect them rather than going into behaviour. They do need protecting, I suspect several species will go extinct in the next 10 years. So that's more important than my curiosity.

I remembering reading that the migratory waders have one of the smallest brains in the bird world. It makes me wonder if intelligence has anything to do with instinct. Us humans are the most intelligent species (supposedly) and we have few instincts.

Biologically, Missouri is actually in a pretty good spot in the country. We have the two great rivers and affinities with a number of different biomes. The eastern forest meets the prairies here in Missouri. So there is a variety of wild plants and animals to be found here. The state is part of some major migratory flyways as well. Then there is the Ozarks which I think is an outstanding geological and biological zone. But I may be a little biased.

 

[John53]

Bologna is migratory and my Ancient Hunter ancestors used to follow the herds and live off of them. They would eat the meat and use the red hide to make clothes to wear in caves to right Og was here. In Ancient Hunter that translates to this: <@@ ^≥!__7. Then one of the bologna taught the other bologna not to migrate and it was all over for my people and they had to build retail outlets using slings made from their old underwear and drag rocks over an infinite number of parking lots to get the extra values.

Fun fact... bologna is called devon here and there's even a fancy type called mortadella. I'm unsure of its migratory history.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Fun fact... bologna is called devon here and there's even a fancy type called mortadella. I'm unsure of its migratory history.

Here you go:

US bologna is from mortadella. It just lacks the cubes of pork fat.

 

[John53]

Here you go:

US bologna is from mortadella. It just lacks the cubes of pork fat.

Devon is mortadella here without the white stuff but I think devon has different names in different parts of the country.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Devon is mortadella here without the white stuff but I think devon has different names in different parts of the country.

So it would be our bologna. I know how ours got the name bologna, since that is the city of origin, even though it has a different name there. I wonder how you version got its name.

 

[John53]

Biologically, Missouri is actually in a pretty good spot in the country. We have the two great rivers and affinities with a number of different biomes. The eastern forest meets the prairies here in Missouri. So there is a variety of wild plants and animals to be found here. The state is part of some major migratory flyways as well. Then there is the Ozarks which I think is an outstanding geological and biological zone. But I may be a little biased.

I'd like to get there and do some birding and I have the opportunity next year but I doubt if I'll go. The Mrs is going over to visit the grandkids and wants me to go. I would if I could get someone to watch the dog for 3 months and if the 14 hour flight was 13 hours shorter and if she didn't want to go to her school reunion.

 

[John53]

So it would be our bologna. I know how ours got the name bologna, since that is the city of origin, even though it has a different name there. I wonder how you version got its name.

Best I could find is that it used to be called German sausage which fell out of favour during WW1. Maybe Devon was used to show support for the English. A lot of towns and streets etc were changed during that time from German.

Devon (sausage) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Subduction Zone]

Best I kind find is that it used to be called German sausage which fell out of favour during WW1. Maybe Devon was used to show support for English. A lot of towns and streets etc were changed during that time from German.

Devon (sausage) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I just read that and was about to link it. I can see that it is about as well respected in Australia as our baloney is respected here. In some areas they even use the ultimate pejorative "Belgium".