| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
06 Aug 2006 08:50:22 AM |
| Object: |
Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
From The Washington Post, 8/6/06:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/05/AR2006080500718.html?nav=rss_opinion
Nothing Wrong With Kansas
State voters move science education out of the Victorian era.
Sunday, August 6, 2006; Page B06
FOR THE SECOND time in less than a year, voters have turned out
office policymakers who insisted on teaching kids bad science.
Last year, the people of Dover, Pa., got rid of a group of school
board members who injected the theory of "intelligent design" into
high school biology.
Last week, Republican primary voters in Kansas ousted the conservative
majority on the state Board of Education, which had adopted science
standards embracing intelligent design and casting doubt on Darwinian
evolution.
Moderate Republicans replaced two conservatives -- giving those
supporting science at least a 6-to-4 majority, even if the other
conservatives hold on in the general election.
The vote, which should lead to changes to those embarrassing
standards, is an encouraging sign that even in conservative
jurisdictions, most people want kids to be taught biology, not
religion.
The Kansas board has been fighting over evolution since 1999, when it
moved to eliminate references to Darwinian theory from statewide
standards.
After anti-evolutionists lost their majority, the board restored
evolution's place.
But the conservatives regained the majority in 2004 and moved to
promote intelligent design -- a challenge to Darwinian theory based
not on biblical inerrancy or overt creationism but on purportedly
scientific flaws in the theory.
Its proponents claim that they merely intend to make sure that
schoolchildren get a full sense of the scientific controversy over
evolution.
The trouble with this liberal-seeming pose is that there is no
scientific controversy over whether evolution happens or over its
essential mechanisms.
Intelligent design is a defensible theological position -- the belief
that life is so complex and perfect that a creator must lie somewhere
behind it.
But being untestable in its positing of a supernatural explanation for
natural phenomena, it is no more scientific than the belief that
Athena was born from Zeus's head.
Teaching it as science does a grave disservice to students who wish to
understand natural phenomena that only evolution truly explains.
How do bacteria become drug-resistant?
Why do birds, bees and bats all have wings?
Intelligent design can lead only to unintelligent students, or at
least badly educated ones.
In the seesawing of Kansas politics on this issue, it is too early to
declare victory.
It is, however, encouraging that voters seem to be insisting, at least
for now, that when students study biology, they learn the real thing.
_____________________________________________________
"The argument that the literal story of Genesis can qualify as science
collapses on three major grounds: the creationists' need to invoke
miracles in order to compress the events of the earth's history into
the biblical span of a few thousand years; their unwillingness to
abandon claims clearly disproved, including the assertion that all
fossils are products of Noah's flood; and their reliance upon
distortion, misquote, half-quote, and citation out of context to
characterize the ideas of their opponents."
Stephen Jay Gould
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 12:08:23 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 09:38:53 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:31:56 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
Yes, they have. When the differences become great enough they won't mate.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:29:39 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA8AC.9FEA59E3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
Yes, they have. When the differences become great enough they won't mate.
micro, not macroevloution. which explains how we have a whole buch of
different types of butterflies but once a butterfly always a butterfly.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:39:19 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA8AC.9FEA59E3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
Yes, they have. When the differences become great enough they won't mate.
micro, not macroevloution. which explains how we have a whole buch of
different types of butterflies but once a butterfly always a butterfly.
And over millions of years can develop into something else. Fossil record.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
14 Aug 2006 10:28:42 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9EE7.9D83FF4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA8AC.9FEA59E3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
Yes, they have. When the differences become great enough they won't
mate.
micro, not macroevloution. which explains how we have a whole buch of
different types of butterflies but once a butterfly always a butterfly.
And over millions of years can develop into something else. Fossil record.
That's what they "THINK"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
15 Aug 2006 11:02:28 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9EE7.9D83FF4@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA8AC.9FEA59E3@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
Yes, they have. When the differences become great enough they won't
mate.
micro, not macroevloution. which explains how we have a whole buch of
different types of butterflies but once a butterfly always a butterfly.
And over millions of years can develop into something else. Fossil record.
That's what they "THINK"
It's what we KNOW.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "TS Moderator" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
13 Aug 2006 02:26:16 PM |
|
|
Question for evolutionists. If you take a nice lifeless planet the
same size as earth with plenty of water and other chemicals, in a
similar solar system to this one, would DNA "evolve" again? Or would
something else "evolve"? If so, what?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 10:32:59 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
There was another case I've read of where a single
mutation caused speciation. A grasshopper species
bred some mutants who followed slightly different
environmental cues for breeding, hunting for mates
during temperatures slightly outside the species
norm but distinct enough that these otherwise-normal
mutants bred with each other only.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 10:39:41 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
There was another case I've read of where a single
mutation caused speciation. A grasshopper species
bred some mutants who followed slightly different
environmental cues for breeding, hunting for mates
during temperatures slightly outside the species
norm but distinct enough that these otherwise-normal
mutants bred with each other only.
Still a grasshopper.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:35:37 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
But different ones. Evolution.
There was another case I've read of where a single
mutation caused speciation. A grasshopper species
bred some mutants who followed slightly different
environmental cues for breeding, hunting for mates
during temperatures slightly outside the species
norm but distinct enough that these otherwise-normal
mutants bred with each other only.
Still a grasshopper.
But different ones. Evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:27:51 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA989.89A59B05@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
But different ones. Evolution.
There was another case I've read of where a single
mutation caused speciation. A grasshopper species
bred some mutants who followed slightly different
environmental cues for breeding, hunting for mates
during temperatures slightly outside the species
norm but distinct enough that these otherwise-normal
mutants bred with each other only.
Still a grasshopper.
But different ones. Evolution.
microevolution
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:37:16 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAA989.89A59B05@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
But different ones. Evolution.
There was another case I've read of where a single
mutation caused speciation. A grasshopper species
bred some mutants who followed slightly different
environmental cues for breeding, hunting for mates
during temperatures slightly outside the species
norm but distinct enough that these otherwise-normal
mutants bred with each other only.
Still a grasshopper.
But different ones. Evolution.
microevolution
Very good! You're learning!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 09:57:37 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
What did you mean above when you used the word "species"?
Do you know what biologists mean when they use the word?
Because I gave you what you asked for, an example of a
process of speciation, and you dismissed it in a fashion that
indicates you think all butterflies are the same species.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 10:14:10 AM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155049057.116604.312520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
What did you mean above when you used the word "species"?
Do you know what biologists mean when they use the word?
Because I gave you what you asked for, an example of a
process of speciation, and you dismissed it in a fashion that
indicates you think all butterflies are the same species.
I didn't intend to dismiss it, I think you example shows the possibility
that evolution is real, but it is still within a subgenus category. The
Evolution theory has us believe that we have evolved across genus
categories, that some how a cat gave birth to a bird or vice versa, and time
is just the magical factor in all of this. That is the part that I find hard
to believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 11:34:23 AM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6T1Cg.110472$iU2.45232@fed1read01...
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155049057.116604.312520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true
or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to describe
the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to
the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
What did you mean above when you used the word "species"?
Do you know what biologists mean when they use the word?
Because I gave you what you asked for, an example of a
process of speciation, and you dismissed it in a fashion that
indicates you think all butterflies are the same species.
I didn't intend to dismiss it, I think you example shows the possibility
that evolution is real, but it is still within a subgenus category. The
Evolution theory has us believe that we have evolved across genus
categories, that some how a cat gave birth to a bird or vice versa, and
time is just the magical factor in all of this. That is the part that I
find hard to believe.
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of genes to
do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that, while humans
are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of scurvy, right?) humans
ought to still have the genes in some non-functional form. And given that we
know what genes are close to the vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know
where it ought to be. And that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C
genes in humans. We can then make some predictions. We know that the
primates in general share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit).
Color vision, tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in
primates from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in
vitamin C (again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't
synthesize vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on
vitamin C, might even be better off. This would suggest that humans
shouldn't be the only primates who can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional because of
similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are considered less
closely related to humans and other apes for independent reasons, have an
active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, gibbons and
apes all lack a functional vitamin C gene. This all is consistent with
predictions you'd make from common descent. That's science. It isn't that
God couldn't have done the same thing, it's that you couldn't predict that
this set of phenomena would happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We can
test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution has
produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce accurate
predictions time and time again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 12:12:19 PM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6T1Cg.110472$iU2.45232@fed1read01...
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155049057.116604.312520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154927303.506812.196980@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"Fredric L. Rice" <frice@skeptictank.org> wrote in message
news:12dd3cv1j97l577@corp.supernews.com...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote:
Creationism or "intelligent design" is not science, and is
not
subject
to
the scientific method.
Like the theroy of evolution it has not been proven false.
Only because religion can't be proven or evidenced either true
or
false.
Evolution, however, is directly observed and not subject to
belief
or
disbelief with the closely-related theories designed to
describe the
observed phenomena subject to overwhelming evidence.
Still looking for the "missing link"
Describe what you mean by "missing link". What questions
do you currently have that you expect such a discovery to
answer?
No one argues that there may be many varieties of a species and this
variances may be attributed to "survival of the fittest" But no one
has
yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead
to the
emergence of another new species.
That's an unusual meaning you have for "missing link".
Are you familiar with the concept where changes in habitat
reproductively isolate groups of a single species from each
other long enough that mutation and genetic drift eventually
lead each of these groups to be unable to breed with the
other groups, leading to speciation? The best example
I've seen of this was a study I read on certain South American
butterflies, apparently their large breeding range contracted
into several isolated "islands" due to natural deforestation.
These islands of forest remained separated from each other
for varying numbers of millenia, the islands seperated
longest produced reproductively-distinct species.
But it was still a butterfly.
What did you mean above when you used the word "species"?
Do you know what biologists mean when they use the word?
Because I gave you what you asked for, an example of a
process of speciation, and you dismissed it in a fashion that
indicates you think all butterflies are the same species.
I didn't intend to dismiss it, I think you example shows the possibility
that evolution is real, but it is still within a subgenus category. The
Evolution theory has us believe that we have evolved across genus
categories, that some how a cat gave birth to a bird or vice versa, and
time is just the magical factor in all of this. That is the part that I
find hard to believe.
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of genes
to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that, while
humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of scurvy, right?)
humans ought to still have the genes in some non-functional form. And
given that we know what genes are close to the vitamin C genes in other
mammals, we know where it ought to be. And that's where we find the
non-functional vitamin C genes in humans. We can then make some
predictions. We know that the primates in general share a lot of
adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color vision, tree-climbing, etc.
all help locate and get to ripe fruit in primates from Africa to the
Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in vitamin C (again, consider
scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't synthesize vitamin C will be
unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on vitamin C, might even be better
off. This would suggest that humans shouldn't be the only primates who
can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional because
of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are considered less
closely related to humans and other apes for independent reasons, have an
active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys, New World monkeys, gibbons and
apes all lack a functional vitamin C gene. This all is consistent with
predictions you'd make from common descent. That's science. It isn't that
God couldn't have done the same thing, it's that you couldn't predict that
this set of phenomena would happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We can
test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution has
produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce accurate
predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration system
to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel injectors,
looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have fuel injection,
thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately predicted the fuel
injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 02:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of genes
to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that, while
humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of scurvy,
right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some non-functional form.
And given that we know what genes are close to the vitamin C genes in
other mammals, we know where it ought to be. And that's where we find the
non-functional vitamin C genes in humans. We can then make some
predictions. We know that the primates in general share a lot of
adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color vision, tree-climbing,
etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in primates from Africa to the
Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in vitamin C (again, consider
scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't synthesize vitamin C will be
unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on vitamin C, might even be
better off. This would suggest that humans shouldn't be the only primates
who can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional because
of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are considered
less closely related to humans and other apes for independent reasons,
have an active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys, New World monkeys,
gibbons and apes all lack a functional vitamin C gene. This all is
consistent with predictions you'd make from common descent. That's
science. It isn't that God couldn't have done the same thing, it's that
you couldn't predict that this set of phenomena would happen based on
creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We can
test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution has
produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce
accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration system
to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel injectors,
looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have fuel injection,
thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately predicted the fuel
injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd have no sequiturs at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 03:04:20 PM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JP5Cg.79449$fG3.54401@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of
genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that,
while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of scurvy,
right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some non-functional
form. And given that we know what genes are close to the vitamin C genes
in other mammals, we know where it ought to be. And that's where we find
the non-functional vitamin C genes in humans. We can then make some
predictions. We know that the primates in general share a lot of
adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color vision, tree-climbing,
etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in primates from Africa to
the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in vitamin C (again,
consider scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't synthesize vitamin C
will be unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on vitamin C, might even
be better off. This would suggest that humans shouldn't be the only
primates who can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional because
of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are considered
less closely related to humans and other apes for independent reasons,
have an active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys, New World monkeys,
gibbons and apes all lack a functional vitamin C gene. This all is
consistent with predictions you'd make from common descent. That's
science. It isn't that God couldn't have done the same thing, it's that
you couldn't predict that this set of phenomena would happen based on
creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We
can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution
has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce
accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel
injectors, looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have
fuel injection, thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately
predicted the fuel injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd have no sequiturs at all.
I came to no conclusions therefore I kept all my sequiturs in my pocket, I
was merely questioning your. You concluded that because two different
species had a similar non-functional gene that man came from apes. I have a
hard time making the connection. It would seem to me that if we really did
come from apes there would be a different strain of humans. One that evolved
with the human like brain but kept its ape like appearance. We should have
Big foot living in the mountains watching us on the TV made by other Big
foots, or is that Big Feet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 04:26:49 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:876Cg.110495$iU2.15186@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JP5Cg.79449$fG3.54401@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little
example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of
genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that,
while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of
scurvy, right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some
non-functional form. And given that we know what genes are close to the
vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know where it ought to be. And
that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C genes in humans. We
can then make some predictions. We know that the primates in general
share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color vision,
tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in primates
from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in vitamin C
(again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't synthesize
vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's possible to OD on vitamin C,
might even be better off. This would suggest that humans shouldn't be
the only primates who can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional
because of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are
considered less closely related to humans and other apes for
independent reasons, have an active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys,
New World monkeys, gibbons and apes all lack a functional vitamin C
gene. This all is consistent with predictions you'd make from common
descent. That's science. It isn't that God couldn't have done the same
thing, it's that you couldn't predict that this set of phenomena would
happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We
can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution
has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce
accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel
injectors, looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have
fuel injection, thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately
predicted the fuel injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd have no sequiturs at all.
I came to no conclusions therefore I kept all my sequiturs in my pocket, I
was merely questioning your. You concluded that because two different
species had a similar non-functional gene that man came from apes. I have
a hard time making the connection. It would seem to me that if we really
did come from apes there would be a different strain of humans. One that
evolved with the human like brain but kept its ape like appearance. We
should have Big foot living in the mountains watching us on the TV made by
other Big foots, or is that Big Feet?
There's certainly a hypothesis to be explored that humans are nothing more
than smarter odd-looking apes. Go into a lab and test it.
But (as has been pointed out to you) the classifications of species and
genus are human-created differences; scientifically-generated differences.
If you have a better hypothesis, bring it on.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries has no
rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in another
thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like that.
The chimpanzee shares something like 99.6% of the same gene code as homo
sapiens sapiens. If you don't see a likely connection, you don't have a
hair on your *****.
Still, I can understand your personal rejection of the facts of evolution.
It's painfully evident you haven't evolved from the apes. A bit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 05:36:23 PM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Km7Cg.79463$fG3.10953@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:876Cg.110495$iU2.15186@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JP5Cg.79449$fG3.54401@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little
example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of
genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict that,
while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard of
scurvy, right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some
non-functional form. And given that we know what genes are close to
the vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know where it ought to be.
And that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C genes in humans.
We can then make some predictions. We know that the primates in
general share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit). Color
vision, tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe fruit in
primates from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit is high in
vitamin C (again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species that can't
synthesize vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's possible to OD
on vitamin C, might even be better off. This would suggest that humans
shouldn't be the only primates who can't synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional
because of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are
considered less closely related to humans and other apes for
independent reasons, have an active vitamin C gene. Old World monkeys,
New World monkeys, gibbons and apes all lack a functional vitamin C
gene. This all is consistent with predictions you'd make from common
descent. That's science. It isn't that God couldn't have done the same
thing, it's that you couldn't predict that this set of phenomena would
happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We
can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce
bogus predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science.
Evolution has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found
to produce accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel
injectors, looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have
fuel injection, thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately
predicted the fuel injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd have no sequiturs at all.
I came to no conclusions therefore I kept all my sequiturs in my pocket,
I was merely questioning your. You concluded that because two different
species had a similar non-functional gene that man came from apes. I have
a hard time making the connection. It would seem to me that if we really
did come from apes there would be a different strain of humans. One that
evolved with the human like brain but kept its ape like appearance. We
should have Big foot living in the mountains watching us on the TV made
by other Big foots, or is that Big Feet?
There's certainly a hypothesis to be explored that humans are nothing more
than smarter odd-looking apes. Go into a lab and test it.
But (as has been pointed out to you) the classifications of species and
genus are human-created differences; scientifically-generated differences.
If you have a better hypothesis, bring it on.
You would think since we invented it, we could show it. No single case of
macroevolution from one species to another through mutations has ever been
observed. All the cases of species change which evolutionists point to are
clearly cases of microevolution (evolving from wolves to collies) not
macroevolution, evolving cats from dogs. Random mutations cannot take you
from dogs to cats because the cat has a complex, orderly, sophisticated
design elements which are not in the dog DNA.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming that
just because two two different species had a similar non-functional gene
makes a case that man came from apes. It doesn't, if anything it leans the
other way. If we are the higher echlon of all the life forms before us
shouldn't we have a non-functional fish gene, non-functional bird
gene......>
The chimpanzee shares something like 99.6% of the same gene code as homo
sapiens sapiens. If you don't see a likely connection, you don't have a
hair on your *****.
The perceived scientific foundation of this Dispatch commentary seems to be
an article (the author has neglected to provide a proper reference) that was
published by a group at the Wayne State University School of Medicine in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) on June 10, 2003. The
PNAS article concludes that human and chimp DNA only differ by ~1%.1 While
it is not the first time that evolutionists have proposed this percentage,
it is not without some controversy. First, while human DNA is known to
contain upwards of 3 billion base pairs, the article in question is only
comparing 92,000 DNA base pairs (not exactly statistically significant).
Second, other authors who have compared more base pairs and include INDEL
tabulations in the data, have concluded that the human / chimp DNA base pair
difference is more like ~5%. 2 Moreover, a recent article published in PNAS
suggests the DNA difference between human and chimps could potentially be
closer to ~10%. 3 Third, in a worst-case scenario, 1% of 3 billion base
pairs is still a DNA difference between humans and chimpanzees of 30 million
base pairs!
http://www.creationists.org/patrickyoung/dispatch07.html#3
Orginal source
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/8/4661
Still, I can understand your personal rejection of the facts of evolution.
It's painfully evident you haven't evolved from the apes. A bit.
It's not that I don't want to you to be like me, I just don't think you have
the capability to evolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "monkeyhawk" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 07:12:29 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Km7Cg.79463$fG3.10953@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:876Cg.110495$iU2.15186@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JP5Cg.79449$fG3.54401@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little
example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of
genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict
that, while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard
of scurvy, right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some
non-functional form. And given that we know what genes are close to
the vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know where it ought to be.
And that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C genes in
humans. We can then make some predictions. We know that the primates
in general share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit).
Color vision, tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe
fruit in primates from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit
is high in vitamin C (again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species
that can't synthesize vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's
possible to OD on vitamin C, might even be better off. This would
suggest that humans shouldn't be the only primates who can't
synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional
because of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are
considered less closely related to humans and other apes for
independent reasons, have an active vitamin C gene. Old World
monkeys, New World monkeys, gibbons and apes all lack a functional
vitamin C gene. This all is consistent with predictions you'd make
from common descent. That's science. It isn't that God couldn't have
done the same thing, it's that you couldn't predict that this set of
phenomena would happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We
can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce
bogus predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science.
Evolution has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found
to produce accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel
injectors, looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have
fuel injection, thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately
predicted the fuel injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd have no sequiturs at all.
I came to no conclusions therefore I kept all my sequiturs in my pocket,
I was merely questioning your. You concluded that because two different
species had a similar non-functional gene that man came from apes. I
have a hard time making the connection. It would seem to me that if we
really did come from apes there would be a different strain of humans.
One that evolved with the human like brain but kept its ape like
appearance. We should have Big foot living in the mountains watching us
on the TV made by other Big foots, or is that Big Feet?
There's certainly a hypothesis to be explored that humans are nothing
more than smarter odd-looking apes. Go into a lab and test it.
But (as has been pointed out to you) the classifications of species and
genus are human-created differences; scientifically-generated
differences. If you have a better hypothesis, bring it on.
You would think since we invented it, we could show it. No single case of
macroevolution from one species to another through mutations has ever been
observed.
With all due respect, *****.
The fossil record tells us that horses' ancestors were three-feet-high at
the shoulder and had five claws.
Vestigial legs in the humpback whale reveal a huge land creature that became
a huge sea mammal.
My tomcat can't impregnate a leopard (but don't tell him, he's convinced he
can), even though they're both "cats," but different species.
All the cases of species change which evolutionists point to are clearly
cases of microevolution (evolving from wolves to collies)
All the evidence presented by creationists must assume (since evolution is
false) that poodles used to scamper around, hoping they weren't gonna get
stomped on by brontosauri.
not macroevolution, evolving cats from dogs. Random mutations cannot take
you from dogs to cats because the cat has a complex, orderly,
sophisticated design elements which are not in the dog DNA.
Another false (do you people have anything but "false" working for you?)
analogy.
Cats evolved into different kinds of cats. Seen any saber-toothed tabbies
lately?
Turns out, the saber-teeth gene wasn't all that advantageous.
Sure turned into a pretty good lion, though.
Your comparison to automotive technology with biological discoveries has
no rational connection whatsoever. (What was it you whined about in
another thread? "Change the subject and run away?" Something like that.
It went over your head, that's okay I will explain it to you. Claiming
that just because two two different species had a similar non-functional
gene makes a case that man came from apes.
Hell, contemporary apes might be lesser-evolved humans; defective and
ultimately doomed branches of the dominant human genome. They *are*
endangerd, after all; and in only a blink of time in evolutionary terms.
Or are you prepared to proclaim that *you*, "Billy," are the highest evolved
species that ever existed?
*YOU,* "Billy* are the culmination of all of the history of mankind; the
very personification of "God's vision!"
Yup. It's you or nobody.
Either *you* are the culmination of God's plan, the perfect human, the
ultimate human. Or, perhaps, "God" hasn't quite achieved perfection yet.
In which case, evolution is a given.
Which is it, "Billy?"
Are you the perfect human?
Or could there possibly be a better ape than you?
It doesn't, if anything it leans the other way. If we are the higher
echlon of all the life forms before us shouldn't we have a non-functional
fish gene, non-functional bird gene......>
And you're going to declare here and now, without any research to prove it,
that there isn't?
That's good theology but it ain't science.
The critters who could swim fast and avoid the critters who could swim fast
and grow teeth either survived or they didn't. Some of the critters that
couldn't swif fast were born with longer frontal fins and scampered up on
the beach. They fucked and created more critters with teeth and frontal
fins. Some of those critters' grew whiskers and became tasty catfish. Some
of those catfigh grew more whiskers and it became fur. Some of those
critters' scales turned into feathers. A lot of those critters flapped
everything they had to get away from the critters in the sea that were
hellbent on eating them.
Figure in a billion years or so of survivors, and you've got different kinds
of critters.
The alternative to the above (admittedly elementary) analysis is that "God"
was up there in his workshop and scuplting catfish, which were different
from trout, which were different from sharks, which were different from
flounders.....etc. etc.
Science doesn't say that didn't happen. Science simply can't find any
evidence that that's *how* it happened.
If you want science on your side, state your hypothesis. Tell us how you're
gonna prove that "God" is up there sculpting flounders and basset hounds and
emus and sewer rats and ***** Cheney and Tazmanian devils and wabbits and
gnus. Sure a "God" could do it that way; it's a matter of faith. But if
your "God" really did "create Man in His own image," (and given that the
concept of time is basically meaningless to "God"), chances are He took the
easy way out and created a system that could evolve life according to
rational, understandable, scientifically-observable means.
The chimpanzee shares something like 99.6% of the same gene code as homo
sapiens sapiens. If you don't see a likely connection, you don't have a
hair on your *****.
The perceived scientific foundation of this Dispatch commentary seems to
be an article (the author has neglected to provide a proper reference)
that was published by a group at the Wayne State University School of
Medicine in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) on
June 10, 2003. The PNAS article concludes that human and chimp DNA only
differ by ~1%.1 While it is not the first time that evolutionists have
proposed this percentage, it is not without some controversy. First, while
human DNA is known to contain upwards of 3 billion base pairs, the article
in question is only comparing 92,000 DNA base pairs (not exactly
statistically significant). Second, other authors who have compared more
base pairs and include INDEL tabulations in the data, have concluded that
the human / chimp DNA base pair difference is more like ~5%. 2 Moreover, a
recent article published in PNAS suggests the DNA difference between human
and chimps could potentially be closer to ~10%. 3 Third, in a worst-case
scenario, 1% of 3 billion base pairs is still a DNA difference between
humans and chimpanzees of 30 million base pairs!
More cut-and-paste from "Billy," who has no idea what he's talking about.
If the sample chimp has brown eyes and the sample human has blue eyes,
*there's a difference!!!!* If the sample chimp is right-handed and the
sample human is left-handed, *There's A Difference!!!!* If the sample chimp
has a full coat of fur on his back and the sample female doesn't, (well,
depending on the girl), **THERE'S A DIFERENCE!!!!**
Fact is, among a large population of chimpanzees and a large population of
human beings, there's not all that much difference.
"Wayne State?!"
Now *that's* a prestegious institutiuon.
Like they say in the NCAA Basketball Tournament: beware of states that
aren't states.
Still, I can understand your personal rejection of the facts of
evolution. It's painfully evident you haven't evolved from the apes. A
bit.
It's not that I don't want to you to be like me, I just don't think you
have the capability to evolve.
A 3rd Grade retort just this side of "I know you are but what am I?"
You really have no idea what it is you believe in, do you? You just
believe. Pity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:27:59 AM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aQ9Cg.79477$fG3.59480@dukeread09...
All the evidence presented by creationists must assume (since evolution is
false) that poodles used to scamper around, hoping they weren't gonna get
stomped on by brontosauri.
Isn't there a "Creation Science" museum somewhare that has educational
dioramas showing a pack of wild poodles bringing down a wolly mammoth?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 07:31:09 PM |
|
|
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:aQ9Cg.79477$fG3.59480@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Gl8Cg.110510$iU2.78068@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Km7Cg.79463$fG3.10953@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:876Cg.110495$iU2.15186@fed1read01...
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:JP5Cg.79449$fG3.54401@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Okay, "Billy," try to wrap your little brain around this little
example:
Most mammals can synthesize vitamin C, and they use the same set of
genes to do it. Evolution and common descent allow us to predict
that, while humans are known not to produce vitamin C (you've heard
of scurvy, right?) humans ought to still have the genes in some
non-functional form. And given that we know what genes are close to
the vitamin C genes in other mammals, we know where it ought to be.
And that's where we find the non-functional vitamin C genes in
humans. We can then make some predictions. We know that the primates
in general share a lot of adaptations to frugivory (eating fruit).
Color vision, tree-climbing, etc. all help locate and get to ripe
fruit in primates from Africa to the Pacific and the Americas. Fruit
is high in vitamin C (again, consider scurvy). Frugivorous species
that can't synthesize vitamin C will be unharmed, and since it's
possible to OD on vitamin C, might even be better off. This would
suggest that humans shouldn't be the only primates who can't
synthesize vitamin C.
When we test that prediction, we find that many primates also have a
defective gene. The same gene is there, and it is non-functional
because of similar mutations. Lemurs and tarsiers, groups that are
considered less closely related to humans and other apes for
independent reasons, have an active vitamin C gene. Old World
monkeys, New World monkeys, gibbons and apes all lack a functional
vitamin C gene. This all is consistent with predictions you'd make
from common descent. That's science. It isn't that God couldn't have
done the same thing, it's that you couldn't predict that this set of
phenomena would happen based on creationism. It isn't science.
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world.
We can test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce
bogus predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science.
Evolution has produced countless hypotheses and they have been found
to produce accurate predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has
fuel injectors, looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also
have fuel injection, thus I can conclude that Evolution has
accurately predicted the fuel injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
If it weren't for non sequiturs you'd h | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
