Chillies

Ok Ok..... so I was a bit hung over this morning.....

quote:

---

Do you need to grow in a greenhouse, or do you just plant them outside (around your dustbin?)

---

I use a greenhouse these days but have had some success growing early varieties in the plot directly in front of the greenhouse (south facing) and previously had some success growing chiles in a conservatory (when I lived dahn sahth in SW19 all those years ago).

The problem I have with growing chiles these days is that the growing season is short in Scotland - and so starting the seeds off earlier than the textbooks would advise is recommended. Also, bring them on with lights before planting up and out in the greenhouse.

If you should manage to get a plant to fruit, you can normally over-winter indoors - I did that with the Red Savina plant last year. Advantage is that it gets a real head start on the next growing season. Over-wintering a second year rarely works in my experience - I think the plants burn out somewhat.

If you treat your chiles like you would tomatoes, you'll be fine. In other words, don't feed too much until fruiting, water plenty. To increase pungency, stress the plant by witholding water until the plant wilts and then flood. Picking fruit once semi-ripe brings on other fruit which has yet to ripen.

Enjoy.

John (with Percy Thrower hat on)

7v:

quote:

---

I see no problem with the possibility that, at the root of evolution, is the 'mind of the universe'. In fact, this idea solves many problems with the theory of evolution of the nature of 'how did the insect wing develop?'

---

In what sense are these problems with the theory of evolution? Evolutionary theory gives us theoretical mechanisms that allow exactly this sort of change, and the physical sciences provide us with physical mechanisms by which such changes, in simple cases, can readily be demonstrated to occur. AFAIK, the only known difference is in the degree of complexity (in the colloquial sense of the word) involved. If this is a problem with evolution then surely one must argue equally that multiple body problems are a problem with (rather than within) Newtonian mechanics?

But who knows? Maybe the mind of the universe does micro-manage evolution. What is certain is that if it does not play by the rules and make its existence and actions scientifically testable then it has no valid explanatory role in evolution or any other science.

-----

What really interests me is the issue of whether the spelling "chile" evolved from "chilli" (which supposedly evolved via Spanish from the Aztec word) or was created independently.

[NB I post sporadically, these days, and I may not return to this thread until the weekend].

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
7v:

quote:

---

I see no problem with the possibility that, at the root of evolution, is the 'mind of the universe'. In fact, this idea solves many problems with the theory of evolution of the nature of 'how did the insect wing develop?'

---

In what sense are these problems _with_ the theory of evolution? Evolutionary theory gives us theoretical mechanisms that allow exactly this sort of change, and the physical sciences provide us with physical mechanisms by which such changes, in simple cases, can readily be demonstrated to occur. AFAIK, the only known difference is in the degree of complexity (in the colloquial sense of the word) involved. If this is a problem with evolution then surely one must argue equally that multiple body problems are a problem with (rather than within) Newtonian mechanics?

---

I have a particular problem in understanding how certain evolutionary steps could have possibly occurred by random mutation and the insect wing is a good example of this.

Unless the wing is made of the right material with the right density and the correct muscles attached and governed by the insect's brain, etc., etc., what good is it? It would have no useful function whatsoever. So, I don't believe that the wing could have evolved step by step from a 'partial' wing. On the other hand, it seems inconceivable that a working wing could appear in its completed form by any random process.

The only other place that I have seen anything in nature that resembles an insect wing is in a fish tank looking at the material and mechanism of fish fins. I could envisage that an insect wing could evolve from the same process that 'created' a fish fin by a mechanism such as Sheldrake's 'Morphogenetic Fields'. However, this does beg the question: which came first, the fish or the flying insect?

quote:

---

But who knows? Maybe the mind of the universe _does_ micro-manage evolution. What is certain is that if it does not play by the rules and make its existence and actions scientifically testable then it has no valid explanatory role in evolution or any other science.

---

I don't follow your logic here. It seems like those 'objectivists' in hi-fi who say that if a difference isn't measured then it doesn't exist. Perhaps we're just not yet measuring the right things. Similarly, just because some aspect of evolution is not currently susceptible to scientific testing at this time doesn't mean that it never will be. Tell this to the nuclear physicists who would like to spend billions of pounds building equipment to detect the so-called 'God Particle'.

Steve

[This message was edited by 7V on Tue 21 September 2004 at 13:21.]

Wow.

The Universal Intelligence at work!

Has this thread EVOLVED:

quote:

---

There is a brand of hot peppers available from Tescos.

From the Ethnic or Kosher section they are called:

Pickled Hot Peppers by Beit Hashita.

630 gramme jar they are largish green things.

These little f**kers will rip your mouth out, but boy are they good fun, you see funny colours directly after wards and what ever you do don't accidentally snort the liquid up the back of your throat as I once did because it induces a kind of high which is unpleasant.

---

to

quote:

---

But who knows? Maybe the mind of the universe _does_ micro-manage evolution. What is certain is that if it does not play by the rules and make its existence and actions scientifically testable then it has no valid explanatory role in evolution or any other science.

---

?

Or was it PLANNED that way?

Anyway, I don't think there can be any doubt that it was a higher form of consciousness and wit that created a world where a bunch of sad twats willing to spend the GNP of small nations on black boxes that reproduce pitched noises meets to discuss a small obscure vegetable whose only attribute is to reduce the consumer's ringpiece to a firey and tattered mess and then end up debating evolution/creationism.

Fantastic!

If someone was to start a thread on, say, felching - where do we think that one would evolve/mutate/be guided to? Cue shouts of "Armageddon! (that will mean nothing if you haven't heard the .wav file!)

cheers

Ross

Steve said "I have a particular problem in understanding how certain evolutionary steps could have possibly occurred by random mutation and the insect wing is a good example of this"

This is by far the most common misunderstanding of Evolution and it was explicitly dealt with by Darwin himself over a century ago in a book about Orchids. Since then it keeps getting re-raised both by Creationists and just by people struggling to get to grips with what are often quite difficult ideas, and so has subsequently been explained again by any number of by modern biologists. "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins is as good as any on the subject.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
... "The Blind Watchmaker" by Dawkins is as good as any on the subject.

---

Of course, as you'll appreciate Matthew, it's not sufficient in a discussion of this nature to say, effectively, "You're wrong because Richard Dawkins says you're wrong".

In his book, Dawkins produced a computer simulation to show that within a relatively small number of 43 generations random mutations can produce a meaningful result. Others have subsequently produced computer simulations that refute Dawkins' assumptions (one such simulation can be downloaded: Dawkins’ Blind Watchmaker Thesis Refuted).

Other scientists have also refuted Dawkins' arguments. For example, a recent issue of Science presents two papers on 'Adaptive Mutation in bacteria'. Biochemist J.A. Shapiro, in a commentary accompanying these papers, states the following: "The discovery that cells use biochemical systems to change their DNA in response to physiological inputs moves mutation beyond the realm of 'blind' stochastic events and provides a mechanistic basis for understanding how biological requirements can feed back onto genome structure."

For my part, Matthew, I remain unconvinced that an insect wing can evolve randomly. Perhaps you can tell me where I'm wrong or just give me a sentence or two that might give me cause to re-consider.

Steve

Steve,

There is *lots* of material on the subject and I am far from an expert. If you want to learn more you would need to do some reading.

"Other scientists have also refuted Dawkins' arguments"

Lots of Scientists disgree with Dawkins, not least his arch enemy Stephen Jay Gould. The overwhelming majority of them agree that evolution can produce an insect wing though.

"I remain unconvinced that an insect wing can evolve randomly"

The point is that it isn't random. Something not being the result of a pre-concieved design is not the same as something happening randomly.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Lots of Scientists disgree with Dawkins, not least his arch enemy Stephen Jay Gould. The overwhelming majority of them agree that evolution can produce an insect wing though.

"I remain unconvinced that an insect wing can evolve randomly"

The point is that it isn't random. Something not being the result of a pre-concieved design is not the same as something happening randomly.

---

Matthew,

I don't deny that evolution produced the insect wing, in fact I'm quite sure that it did. We're arguing about the mechanism of this evolution.

However, your post has confused me. You seem to be saying that the process is not random. I thought that 'random mutation' (which is the part I don't believe in) means 'random mutation'. Having mutated, as I'm sure we both agree, that which is fit to survive (in the conditions prevailing) will survive.

Incidentally, human engineering and invention, which is clearly not random, is by no means the result of 'pre-conceived design' either.

- the blind watchmakers leading the blind watchmakers
Steve

Because natural selection inhenently selects from amongst the random mutations. So althoguh individual mutations are random the trend is towards a fitness for purpose that transcends this randomness.

Matthew

TC said

quote:

---

If you're into peppers, I grow my own - I have some USDA Red Savina Habanero coming on

---

the pedant in me might have pointed out that you in fact meant habañero, thankfully I'm far too restrained.

I was reminded of that great Gomez line "he only grows, for guys he knows, and me" on reading your post. Wish I had the patience to grow chiles! saludos!

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

Can anyone explain briefly the difference between chiles, peppers and jalapenos?

(Oh, and of course how they evolved )

Steve

quote:

---

the pedant in me might have pointed out that you in fact meant habañero, thankfully I'm far too restrained

---

Touché, my dear sir!

Actually, I've always gone by the Chile Heads Digest convention of spelling as 'habanero' without the accent - you're possibly getting confused with jalapeño. See this link, just above the 'External Links' heading.

Rico, growing chiles isn't difficult - you should try it! No patience requried, really. It's a really great feeling when the first pods start to form, and an even greater feeling sampling that first hab of a season. Sadly, here in the rather cool climes of Scotland I am forever fighting against the short growing season.

Interesting aside: the conditions required for growing chiles successfully are not entirely unlike those required for growing other select herbs. Not that I ever would, of course. Honest, M'lud, I thought it was a weed

John

quote:

---

Can anyone explain briefly the difference between chiles, peppers and jalapenos?

---

<dons pedant hat>Ah, that would be jalapeños then?</hat>

You can learn more by surfing around this link. Basically, chile pepper is a subset of the genus capsicum, and jalapeño is a cultivar of the capsicum annuum. Jalapeños are fairly easy to grow relative to most peppers and are fairly mild, thick-walled pods which taste greeeeat!

HTH,

John Chile Head

Thanks for the link, John!

I would take issue with the wikipedia's somewhat confused explanation - they say the word has its roots in Spanish, and originates in Havana. The word in spanish is in fact, habañero - if they bothered to check.

I see no confusion with jalapeño, other than it is yet another of the nineteen-million-odd varieties of chile one can taste in northern, central and southern America! I remember counting more than ninety different types in one produce market outside mexico city.

so growing chiles is easy? I'll put it on that list of things to do. We had a flood at home due to a burst pipe today, I think my time demands will be extreme with major scope creep over the next few months - anyone else suffering from breakdown of polyethelene plumbing?

Rico - SM/Mullet Audio

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

---

But who knows? Maybe the mind of the universe _does_ micro-manage evolution. What is certain is that if it does not play by the rules and make its existence and actions scientifically testable then it has no valid explanatory role in evolution or any other science.

---

I don't follow your logic here. It seems like those 'objectivists' in hi-fi who say that if a difference isn't measured then it doesn't exist. Perhaps we're just not yet measuring the right things. Similarly, just because some aspect of evolution is not currently susceptible to scientific testing at this time doesn't mean that it never will be. Tell this to the nuclear physicists who would like to spend billions of pounds building equipment to detect the so-called 'God Particle'.

---

Steve, despite repeatedly reading and re-reading the above I am at a loss to see any connection between what I said and your reply to it (other than that both mention evolution and scientfic testability). Consequently, I can only assume that your difficulty in following my logic is due to the fact that you think I have said something other than what I actually have said. Since you have not stated clearly what you think I mean, it would probably do nothing but introduce further confusion if I were to attempt to reply to your reply on the basis of my limited understanding of your misunderstanding.

Suffice it to say that I take a dim view of the ironically named hi-fi "objectivists" and their cargo-cult-like parody of science, and I'm disappointed that you could imagine my argument was comparable with theirs.

[This message was edited by JeremyD on Fri 24 September 2004 at 20:42.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:

quote:

---

But who knows? Maybe the mind of the universe _does_ micro-manage evolution. What is certain is that if it does not play by the rules and make its existence and actions scientifically testable then it has no valid explanatory role in evolution or any other science.

---

I don't follow your logic here. It seems like those 'objectivists' in hi-fi who say that if a difference isn't measured then it doesn't exist. Perhaps we're just not yet measuring the right things. Similarly, just because some aspect of evolution is not currently susceptible to scientific testing at this time doesn't mean that it never will be. Tell this to the nuclear physicists who would like to spend billions of pounds building equipment to detect the so-called 'God Particle'.

---

Steve, despite repeatedly reading and re-reading the above I am at a loss to see any connection between what I said and your reply to it (other than that both mention evolution and scientfic testability). Consequently, I can only assume that your difficulty in following my logic is due to the fact that you think I have said something other than what I actually have said. Since you have not stated clearly what you think I mean, it would probably do nothing but introduce further confusion if I were to attempt to reply to your reply on the basis of my limited understanding of your misunderstanding.

Suffice it to say that I take a dim view of the ironically named hi-fi "objectivists" and their cargo-cult-like parody of science, and I'm disappointed that you could imagine my argument was comparable with theirs.

---

Jeremy,

Well I did start by saying that I don't follow your logic here. However, in truth, I then plunged off into something that was penned on the basis that I believed that I understood what you were saying, which, I gather from your response, I didn't.

So, thank you for not attempting to reply to my reply. As you say, it would probably only have introduced further confusion to my understanding of your limited understanding of my misunderstanding - if I've understood you correctly.

And I can only apologize for my original plunging, on the basis of my miscalculating the degree of my initial understanding.

Rest assured I no longer imagine that your argument is comparable with any cargo-cult-like science parodists - I'm amazed I ever did really. And it only remains for me to state my earnest hope that we don't fall out over this trivial issue of my previous false imaginings and your subsequent misunderstandings, which all seemed so important at the time.

Life's too short.

Steve

Steve,

quote:

---

Rest assured I no longer imagine that your argument is comparable with any cargo-cult-like science parodists - I'm amazed I ever did really. And it only remains for me to state my earnest hope that we don't fall out over this trivial issue of my previous false imaginings and your subsequent misunderstandings, which all seemed so important at the time.

---

Thanks. Don't worry - I'm sure there's no danger of our falling out.

Ross,

quote:

---

Or was it PLANNED that way?

Anyway, I don't think there can be any doubt that it was a higher form of consciousness and wit that created a world where a bunch of sad twats willing to spend the GNP of small nations on black boxes that reproduce pitched noises meets to discuss a small obscure vegetable whose only attribute is to reduce the consumer's ringpiece to a firey and tattered mess and then end up debating evolution/creationism.

---

Put that way, creationism sounds positively nutty.

Joe