| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
08 Feb 2004 01:41:42 PM |
| Object: |
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
How are we to account for the observation that so many creationists,
when repeatedly confronted with overwhelming evidence in support of
the theory of evolution, seem either to not comprehend this evidence,
or to discount it without serious thought, or with clearly specious
reasoning?
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate? Clearly, the proponents of modern science
education have not found a way so far to deal with this brick wall,
since it is seemingly still very much in operation in the minds of
creationists, in spite of all their attempts to break through it.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
22 Feb 2004 11:48:30 AM |
|
|
Glenn wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40340705$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402172243.216d46c0@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
I apologize for associating you with Eldredge.
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
http://www.kcfs.org/miller/response.html
"As our textbook points out, evolution is best defined as what Darwin called
"descent with modification," meaning that today's living species are the
modified descendants of species that preceded them. As the most prestigious
scientific body in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences,
writes,
evolution: "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time,
biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species.
Darwin
called this process 'descent with modification,' which remains a good
definition
of biological evolution today." (From Science and Creationism, page 27.
National
Academy Press, 1999) "
Seems they left out *all* living things supposedly being *related*.
http://www.paleobio.org/education/nutshell.html
"Every organism alive today has a history that can be traced back to when
life
originated, more than three and a half billion years ago. All living things
(bacteria under a microscope, trees in your backyard, and pets in your lap)
are
the current representatives of lineages, or continuous lines of descent,
that
began more than three billion years ago when the first cells evolved. Even
YOUR
history can be traced back to this time when all life shared a single common
ancestor. To share a common ancestor is to be related. This means that all
living things share some degree of relatedness."
That's nice.
When creationists say they have a scientific theory of creation they
want taught in schools, are they lying to us, or are they just delusional.
Which is it.
When you insist that they are either lying or delusional, are you either
lying, or delusional. Which is it, moron?
How Christian of you. How old are you, Glenn? 14? 15?
Now answer my question.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 07:31:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 00:56:57 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
""Rev Dr" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message
news:40340705$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com...
Glenn wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402172243.216d46c0@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
I apologize for associating you with Eldredge.
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
http://www.kcfs.org/miller/response.html
"As our textbook points out, evolution is best defined as what Darwin called
"descent with modification," meaning that today's living species are the
modified descendants of species that preceded them. As the most prestigious
scientific body in the United States, The National Academy of Sciences,
writes,
evolution: "explains that living things share common ancestors. Over time,
biological processes such as natural selection give rise to new species.
Darwin
called this process 'descent with modification,' which remains a good
definition
of biological evolution today." (From Science and Creationism, page 27.
National
Academy Press, 1999) "
Seems they left out *all* living things supposedly being *related*.
http://www.paleobio.org/education/nutshell.html
"Every organism alive today has a history that can be traced back to when
life
originated, more than three and a half billion years ago. All living things
(bacteria under a microscope, trees in your backyard, and pets in your lap)
are
the current representatives of lineages, or continuous lines of descent,
that
began more than three billion years ago when the first cells evolved. Even
YOUR
history can be traced back to this time when all life shared a single common
ancestor. To share a common ancestor is to be related. This means that all
living things share some degree of relatedness."
That's nice.
When creationists say they have a scientific theory of creation they
want taught in schools, are they lying to us, or are they just delusional.
Which is it.
When you insist that they are either lying or delusional, are you either
lying, or delusional. Which is it, moron?
I notice you didn't answer Lenny's question, Glenn. Why is that? What have
you got to hide?
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark VandeWettering" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 03:28:07 PM |
|
|
In article <xAQYb.58$qO6.47617@news.uswest.net>, Glenn wrote:
[ snippage ]
At least he isn't a ***** about stating his beliefs.
_ _ _ _
(_)_ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _____ _____ _ _| |___ __ _ __| | |
| | '_/ _ \ ' \ || | / _ \ V / -_) '_| / _ \/ _` / _` |_|
|_|_| \___/_||_\_, | \___/\_/\___|_| |_\___/\__,_\__,_(_)
|__/
Glenn, you really are a nutcase of the highest order. I apologize
for giving you too little credit in the past.
Mark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 12:24:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 06:40:34 +0000 (UTC),
Douglas Theobald <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote:
AC <mightymartianca@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<slrnc35mga.1b8.mightymartianca@namibia.tandem>...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
I thought I would pipe in before you dragged this fellow through the mud
over this, or worse, toyed with him first.
Note that I did *not* claim that evolution = common descent. Sheldon
removed the quotes clearly indicating it was Niles Eldredge's
statement, not mine.
Ah, so Glenn's uping the ante now. Good ol' Glenn. Just when you think
he's reached an all-time low, he finds some new way to downgrade one's
appraisal of him.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 11:03:29 AM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning. For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime, a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "AC" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 01:52:57 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:03:29 +0000 (UTC),
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning. For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime, a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Evolution would be equally compatible with some aliens dropping primitive
organisms on the planet. I realize that your intense lack of education,
your pathetic subservience to a long discredited world view, and your abject
fear of evidence make it impossible for you to understand evolution. All I
can say is stay away from my kids' school.
--
Aaron Clausen
tao_of_cow/\alberni.net (replace /\ with @)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 10:51:45 PM |
|
|
AC wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 17:03:29 +0000 (UTC),
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
AC wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 01:12:54 +0000 (UTC),
Glenn <glennsheldon@spamqwest.net> wrote:
"Douglas Theobald" <dtheobald@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:53ba0fd0.0402171530.7c3ed4f4@posting.google.com...
snip
Evolution is the idea that all organisms descended from a single
common ancestor. Period.
That's it!
Which, of course, evolution isn't. Evolutionary theory would still hold
true whether there were multiple independent lineages or one. Common
descent is an observation, not a prediction of evolution. If we find life
on Mars and/or Europa, it is quite possible that they will be the products
of seperate abiogenesis events. Providing they are imperfect replicators,
however, evolutionary theory still holds true.
Any way you slice it, evolution [must] along with everything else
have a beginning. For evolution "species" begins in primordial
slime, a condition for which there is no solid evidence, either of
the slime or of the species (singular or plural) ostensibly sprung
from it.
Evolution would be equally compatible with some aliens dropping primitive
organisms on the planet.
Yep, it'd work same as it does now... not one new species
would come from them.
I realize that your intense lack of education,
your pathetic subservience to a long discredited world view, and your abject
fear of evidence make it impossible for you to understand evolution. All I
can say is stay away from my kids' school.
Indoctrination fits you like a litewate jacket.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
19 Feb 2004 06:13:30 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Yep, it'd work same as it does now... not one new species
would come from them.
Once again:
Answer at your leisure.
<sigh>
You know, I'm not at all surprised when creationists prove themselves to
be crushingly uneducated and ignorant about basic biology and evolution.
But I *am* mildly surprised (and a little annoyed) when they turn out
to be too stupid and uninformed to even get the basic CREATIONIST
arguments straight.
This is from the website of Answers in Genesis, one of the largest
creationist organizations in the world:
"Poorly-informed anti-creationist scoffers occasionally think they will
'floor' creation apologists with examples of 'new species forming' in
nature. They are often surprised at the reaction they get from the
better-informed creationists, namely that the creation model depends
heavily on speciation."
Let me repeat that, in case you're not bright enough to get it. Answers
in Genesis says that not only does creationism itself "depend heavily on
speciation", but they also say that those who argue that there are NO
"new species forming in nature" are "poorly informed".
Guess that means YOU, huh. By arguing to me that new species cannot
evolve, you are not only demonstrating that you are completely ignorant
of basic biology, but you're also demonstrating that you're too stupid
and uninformed to even understand the most elementary CREATIONIST arguments.
Anyway, you want some examples of observed speciation events? Sure.
Will 90 of them be enough for you?
Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a
laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to
speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and
Evolution. 7:1-3.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture.
EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated
with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two
insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal
organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in
phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia
hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th
edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American
Biology Teacher. 49:3436.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the
cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on
the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and
autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute
Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical
consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns
and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.]
Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp.
28-59.
Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993.
Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis.
Evolution. 47:1696-1710.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in
agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 2:3-20.
Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants
(2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection
for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of
Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28:631-647.
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila
willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II.
Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the
species problem. Cladistics. 4:317-338.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and
species revisited. Cladistics. 6:83-90.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 20:29-35.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive
and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related
Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia
University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition).
Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient
species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old
field. Science. 177:664-669.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive
divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an
update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and
recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88:172-181.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy.
Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24:333-428.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive
isolation. The American Naturalist. 105:479-483.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of
reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107:318-319.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic
differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly,
Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 336:61-64.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential
host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella
fruit flies (Diptera:Tephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric
models of speciation. Evolution 43:1813-1819.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea
Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 11:1-17.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L.
var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7,
12:1-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in
Drosophila pseudoobscura: a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and
the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of
Botany. 60: 545-553.
Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and
assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35:829-843.
Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for
geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric
and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist.
109:353-358.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X
Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17:305-408.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X
Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 48:1-85.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial
investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster.
Evolution. 34:730-737.
Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for
sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 10:14-22.
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation
between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution.
4:135-148.
Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204:381-384.
Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In: W. H.
Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy: Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In:
J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made
change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a
pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity.
50:295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species
concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28:730-737.
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint
of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution
and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M.
and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology
and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and
the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 15:69-78.
McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic
differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature.
336:64-66.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship
behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution
45:293-306.
Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic
basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88:207-214.
Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts: a case for
pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31:491-503.
Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis
tetrahit. Hereditas. 16:105-154.
Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5:275-289.
Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its
derivatives. J. Genetics. 20:405-467.
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences.
Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus
Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two
populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.
Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental
approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76:138.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in
the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of
Botany. 79:701-707.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the
evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment.
Evolution. 39:645-646.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on
speciation: What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 47:1637-1653.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on
habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist.
131:911-917.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive
isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions:
experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment
testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural
selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits
in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial
Ecology. 20:75-84.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host
races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 336:66-67.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of
reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The
American Naturalist. 108:117-124.
Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept: a
critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104:127-153.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in
Tragopogon: Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany.
76:1119-1124.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection.
Nature. 193:1164-1166.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by
disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104:219-230.
Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of
the Linnean Society. 32:385-393.
Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish: Model systems for studying
ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25:71-96.
Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic
differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis
(Diptera:Tephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 44:1648-1655.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid
speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution.
46:1214-1220.
Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton
ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28:723-729.
Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of
cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 06:39:30 PM |
|
|
Douglas Theobald wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>...
Since you liked the Eldredge quote I posted so much, here's another:
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence
as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J.
Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Theobald" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
17 Feb 2004 08:18:02 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Douglas Theobald wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>...
Since you liked the Eldredge quote I posted so much, here's another:
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence
as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J.
Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
And quite true. I can post random quotes about evolution too, or
from meteorologists talking about the weather. What was your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
18 Feb 2004 10:45:29 AM |
|
|
Douglas Theobald wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr wrote:
Douglas Theobald wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<40324FB4.992181A@worldnet.att.net>...
Since you liked the Eldredge quote I posted so much, here's another:
"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence
as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified professional
arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."—J.
Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist, 49:1961, p. 240.
And quite true. I can post random quotes about evolution too, or
from meteorologists talking about the weather. What was your point?
Read the quote again, this time with comprehension.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
16 Feb 2004 12:20:47 PM |
|
|
David wrote:
darth_versive <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's much too easy to suppose that they really *do* understand it, and
yet for some cynical, ulterior motives, choose to pretend that they
don't. This explanation just doesn't hold water. Some of the things
they say seem so nonsensical that it's hard to believe that anyone
would willingly invite ridicule for saying such things if they really
understood how silly they were, and that people would deliberately
damage their own cause by such statements.
So how are we to account for such behavior? Is there some
psychological "brick wall" that somehow keeps them from understanding
normal science when that science seems to them to contradict some
theological dogma that they hold fast to? If so, just how does this
"brick wall" operate?
A possible project would be to study the psychology of four groups:
1) Raised creationist and still a creationist.
2) Raised creationist and not currently a creationist.
3) Raised atheist and still an atheist.
4) Raised atheist but became a creationist.
Obviously a third group, religious but not creationist also exists, and
if added to the fray would lead to more profile groups than four. For
example, raised religious and now an atheist or raised religious and
now a creationist. If a religious, but not creationist group, were to
exist in such a study then other complications include that category 2,
above, would have to be split into those who are religious and those who
are atheist. Therefore, dealing with the extremes may be more
productive from a psychological perspective.
If nothing else it would be interesting to see how many people fit it to
those four classes. Anyone know if the data is out there?
Have you looked in the Farmer's Almanac?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
29 Jan 2005 02:01:46 PM |
|
|
darth_versive wrote:
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds?
No, they simply don't have minds - not in any meaningful sense.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
30 Jan 2005 07:22:27 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 12:01:46 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds?
No, they simply don't have minds - not in any meaningful sense.
Budikka
Bud - the poster girl for spiritual suicide.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
31 Jan 2005 01:24:59 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 07:22:27 -0600, duke <duckgumbo32@sdc.cox.net>
said in alt.atheism:
On 29 Jan 2005 12:01:46 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds?
No, they simply don't have minds - not in any meaningful sense.
Budikka
Bud - the poster girl for spiritual suicide.
Proving Budikka's point.
--
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise
as false, and by the rulers as useful."
- Seneca the Younger
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
30 Jan 2005 01:47:09 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
Bud - the poster girl for spiritual suicide.
Duck ***** - the poster ***** for cowardice, lies and hypocrisy, all
of which have been documented multiple times.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
30 Jan 2005 04:34:08 PM |
|
|
On 30 Jan 2005 11:47:09 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote:
duke wrote:
Bud - the poster girl for spiritual suicide.
Duck ***** - the poster ***** for cowardice, lies and hypocrisy, all
of which have been documented multiple times.
So many times you can almost count it on one finger. Congrats, bud.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 01:53:17 AM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 30 Jan 2005 11:47:09 -0800, "Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net>
wrote:
duke wrote:
Bud - the poster girl for spiritual suicide.
Duck ***** - the poster ***** for cowardice, lies and hypocrisy,
all
of which have been documented multiple times.
So many times you can almost count it on one finger. Congrats, bud.
I got your finger right here. Sixteen documented lies are here:
http://tinyurl.com/5zlzx
Your response? Cowardice. That's why your comment makes you a
hypocrite - it's another lie.
You keep lying that I run from discussion, well here's your chance.
Let's discuss each of those 16 lies in turn. Or you pick your lie of
choice and let's discuss that. Note that a discussion involves both
sides stating their position and supporting it. It doesn't consist of
one side saying "no it isn't" and then running away. I already stated
my position **and supported it** 16 times. Now it's your turn.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raving Loonie" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
29 Jan 2005 02:22:28 PM |
|
|
Y'all wrote -
"darth_versive wrote:
Do creationists have brick walls in their minds?
No, they simply don't have minds - not in any meaningful sense.
Budikka " - an ad hononiem "ho, ho" have we?
I write - "One person's subjectivity is better than another's"?
Seems to me like we have "Difference of opinion", here.
Hint, as in "Hooray for Tautology"
...That is PRECISELY as "meaningful" as it is.
It is what you are saying MEANS - "Difference of opinion"
Why expect any one 'subjectivity' to be better than another?
Sure, there are lots of reasons ....
Stop.
Look again.
Why expect any one 'subjectivity' to be better than another?
So how does 'Subjective opinion' work? ... What does it represent?
Psychology? Oops! I think Not.
the Raving Loonie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
30 Jan 2005 12:12:15 AM |
|
|
Someone whose mind is not engaged with reality is not operating in any
meaningful sense. It's that simple. Creationists do not deal with
reality. Instead, they substitute their clueless conception of
reality, and no amount of disjointed blather can deny that.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Raving Loonie" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
30 Jan 2005 01:13:54 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote - "Someone whose mind is not engaged with reality
is not operating in any
meaningful sense."
I used to hold your opinion. No. I didn't "find" that good old time
religion to change my opinion. O.K.
Rather, I came to recognize the following:
Each person has a 'persective' by which they view the world. For
example, one person might 'specialize' in caring about "The predominant
aspect". .... I'm talkin' very elemtry perceptive properties, here.
.... Each person uses a different method.
Millions of methods. Can even some of them be right? ... that sort of
arguement.
Turns out, thats NOT the sort of arguement that's in use.
Here is how it works. Take "predominant aspect" for example.
A person who does this goes through life from a very early age mapping
the expriences of life with this 'indexing' tool, this 'filter'.
As a result the invidual build a unique "map' of experience, whose
information is laid out by this 'constant' indexing tool.
....Information is mapped into this map. ... Decisions are made based
upon {what, where and how 'connected'}
I.E. it's NOT the rules, ... its using the rules to build a virtual map
of reality ... and using that unique virtual map interacting back out
to reality.
The intellingnece is in the interelation of the information in the MAP,
.... not in the "mapping tool' ( i.e. the rule set / religion )
Useful?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 02:05:20 PM |
|
|
Raving Loonie wrote:
Budikka666 wrote - "Someone whose mind is not engaged with reality
is not operating in any
meaningful sense."
I used to hold your opinion. No. I didn't "find" that good old time
religion to change my opinion. O.K.
Rather, I came to recognize the following:
Each person has a 'persective' by which they view the world. For
example, one person might 'specialize' in caring about "The
predominant
aspect". .... I'm talkin' very elemtry perceptive properties, here.
... Each person uses a different method.
Millions of methods. Can even some of them be right? ... that sort
of
arguement.
Turns out, thats NOT the sort of arguement that's in use.
Here is how it works. Take "predominant aspect" for example.
A person who does this goes through life from a very early age
mapping
the expriences of life with this 'indexing' tool, this 'filter'.
As a result the invidual build a unique "map' of experience, whose
information is laid out by this 'constant' indexing tool.
...Information is mapped into this map. ... Decisions are made based
upon {what, where and how 'connected'}
I.E. it's NOT the rules, ... its using the rules to build a virtual
map
of reality ... and using that unique virtual map interacting back
out
to reality.
The intellingnece is in the interelation of the information in the
MAP,
... not in the "mapping tool' ( i.e. the rule set / religion )
Useful?
Barely intelligeble, actually. These disjointed sentences are rather
like notes to yourself; not necessarily wrong or stupid, but not
...."filled in' enough for others to easily follow.
If I understand you, then I would add that Creationists' prefered
filter is a social construct. Their reality is the agreement of a
fairly isolated social group, and has *no interest in the physical
world around them. This is fine for getting the social support they so
desperately need, as well as the certainty and direction they crave. It
is, however, useless for understanding the physical world around them.
It has real-life repercussions; they fought against the introduction of
anaesthesia, for instance. Their insistence on controlling others even
while dismissing (physical) reality interfers with good caretaking of
the planet, health care, medical research, communication of ideas (R&D,
and free speech), etc. Even the economic prosperity of the US is
threatened - if we lose a firm grasp on the cutting edge of medicine,
basic science, and such, our grandchildren will be the hosts for the
next generation of tourists.
Not to mention that their congenital inability to see things from other
people's viewpoints make them bullies in the political arena.
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 07:39:28 PM |
|
|
wrote:
<snip>
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 06:48:18 PM |
|
|
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite.
By that token, all political parties are fundamentalist.
--
John S. Wilkins AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
And John said, "Let there be lunch", and there was lunch.
And John tasted that it was good.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 08:59:06 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite.
By that token, all political parties are fundamentalist.
I don't know about all, but the two major parties in the US are.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2005 01:31:48 PM |
|
|
John Wilkins wrote:
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite.
Is that the case with [Gould]"Darwinian fundamentalism"?
By that token, all political parties are fundamentalist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nils-Erik Forsberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
15 Feb 2005 05:12:45 AM |
|
|
Yes because then one use the brain as was it at brick and not as a
living part of a living whole.
Nils F
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
14 Feb 2005 02:38:01 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:
Albert <albertwagner@cox.net> wrote:
unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com wrote:
<snip>
Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite.
Is that the case with [Gould]"Darwinian fundamentalism"?
Possibly. It would certainly apply to anti-theist atheists.
--
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it."
-- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raving Loonie" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 08:33:35 PM |
|
|
Albert <snip>s
"Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite. "
- doesn't it depend upon whether one is 'sucking' or 'blowing'?
.... and how 'bout 'Asctism versus Hedonism' while wer'e at it?
Hey .... and don't forget Jewish, Hindu, Bhuddist and
*Zoroasterik*(?)"fundamentalism" too!
- the Raving Loonie cries
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Raving Loonie" |
|
| Title: Re: Do creationists have brick walls in their minds? |
01 Feb 2005 08:34:38 PM |
|
|
Albert <snip>s
"Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether Christian, Islamic or
Scientism. In all cases an agenda determines dogma, not the
opposite. "
- doesn't it depend upon whether one is 'sucking' or 'blowing'?
.... and how 'bout 'Asctism versus Hedonism' while wer'e at it?
Hey .... and don't forget Jewish, Hindu, Bhuddist and
*Zoroasterik*(?)"fundamentalism" too!
- the Raving Loonie cries
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
