| 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: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:27:37 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAAF96.ABE6142C@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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
It's called the fossil record. Speciation is being observed in our own
life times.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
No one disputes microevolution, Show examples of macroevolution being
observed in our life time.
"macroevolution" requires longer periods of time. Every speciation event
is a potential for such.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 07:40:36 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Km7Cg.79463$fG3.10953@dukeread09...
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
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)
I suspect he isn't seeing my stuff. I don't post to any of the Rush
fan groups.
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.
Do you realize how many variations would have to be consequitively
observed to accomplish the level of variation you seek. It is because
of our desire to not have a bajillion different genus and species
categories
that we define them so broadly. In order to have the magnitude of
change you describe, we would have to observe literally thousands
of alterations, many of them not observable in a fossil record.
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.
First of all no one is suggesting that cats and dogs are anywhere
close on the evolutionary chain of events. For that matter, no one is
suggesting that they are even on the same branch. One of the harder
parts about figuring out the various paths is that many of the
intermediate
steps are gone. Of the thousands of variations between the first
multicelled organisims and a cat and dog, the vast majority of them
no longer exist, and there is no fossil record of them. If there were,
we'd have a classification nightmare on our hands since there would
be no clear lines of demarcation between various organisms. They'd
all just be slight variations of other organisms.
[snip]
The chimpanzee shares something like 99.6% of the same gene code as homo
sapiens sapiens.
[snip]
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!
[snip]
I guess I'm missing the scientific significance of this statement.
1%,
3% it's all to the same effect. There is a huge commonality of genetic
structure between otherwise fairly significantly different organisms.
What this means is that very little genetic change is required to
result in a wide variety of organisms. This supports the observation
that a wide variety can come from a large amount of commonality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:49:12 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"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
Bzzt. Wrong. First, we didn't come from apes as we now know them, but from
ape LIKE primates. And that applies to gorillas, orangs, and chimps. Common
ancestors from which the modern apes - and humans - descended.
Next, what is this "different strain of humans" nonsense? Human and chimp
DNA are on the order of 98% or so alike. We had a common ancestor that produced
both species.
This will shock you too.
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
...
About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene. However,
researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between corresponding
pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on average,
than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical on
average.
...
Evolution has the explanatory power to account for this.
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: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:25:49 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAACB8.FE13AB2E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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
Bzzt. Wrong. First, we didn't come from apes as we now know them, but from
ape LIKE primates. And that applies to gorillas, orangs, and chimps.
Common
ancestors from which the modern apes - and humans - descended.
Yea I know the theroy
Next, what is this "different strain of humans" nonsense? Human and chimp
DNA are on the order of 98% or so alike. We had a common ancestor that
produced
both species.
So the theory claims.
This will shock you too.
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
...
About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
However,
researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between
corresponding
pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on
average,
than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical
on
average.
...
Evolution has the explanatory power to account for this.
My Chevy has 98% of the same parts as my neighbors ford, does that mean
evolution occurs in automobiles also?
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: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:35:31 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAACB8.FE13AB2E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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
Bzzt. Wrong. First, we didn't come from apes as we now know them, but from
ape LIKE primates. And that applies to gorillas, orangs, and chimps.
Common
ancestors from which the modern apes - and humans - descended.
Yea I know the theroy
If that were true then you wouldn't be so dense as to compare biological
processes with cars.
Next, what is this "different strain of humans" nonsense? Human and chimp
DNA are on the order of 98% or so alike. We had a common ancestor that
produced
both species.
So the theory claims.
Based on the facts. We know this also from consideration of dogs coming
from wolf like animals in the recent past.
This will shock you too.
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
...
About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
However,
researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between
corresponding
pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on
average,
than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent identical
on
average.
...
Evolution has the explanatory power to account for this.
My Chevy has 98% of the same parts as my neighbors ford, does that mean
evolution occurs in automobiles also?
Are cars alive? No? Then biological processes do not apply.
The ignorance of your "example" is indicative of severe floundering...
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: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
14 Aug 2006 10:27:12 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9E03.B4CE4834@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAACB8.FE13AB2E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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
Bzzt. Wrong. First, we didn't come from apes as we now know them, but
from
ape LIKE primates. And that applies to gorillas, orangs, and chimps.
Common
ancestors from which the modern apes - and humans - descended.
Yea I know the theroy
If that were true then you wouldn't be so dense as to compare biological
processes with cars.
Next, what is this "different strain of humans" nonsense? Human and
chimp
DNA are on the order of 98% or so alike. We had a common ancestor that
produced
both species.
So the theory claims.
Based on the facts. We know this also from consideration of dogs coming
from wolf like animals in the recent past.
We determined the earth was flat based on the facts at the time.
This will shock you too.
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
...
About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
However,
researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between
corresponding
pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on
average,
than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent
identical
on
average.
...
Evolution has the explanatory power to account for this.
My Chevy has 98% of the same parts as my neighbors ford, does that mean
evolution occurs in automobiles also?
Are cars alive? No? Then biological processes do not apply.
The ignorance of your "example" is indicative of severe floundering...
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: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
15 Aug 2006 11:02:01 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DE9E03.B4CE4834@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAACB8.FE13AB2E@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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
Bzzt. Wrong. First, we didn't come from apes as we now know them, but
from
ape LIKE primates. And that applies to gorillas, orangs, and chimps.
Common
ancestors from which the modern apes - and humans - descended.
Yea I know the theroy
If that were true then you wouldn't be so dense as to compare biological
processes with cars.
Next, what is this "different strain of humans" nonsense? Human and
chimp
DNA are on the order of 98% or so alike. We had a common ancestor that
produced
both species.
So the theory claims.
Based on the facts. We know this also from consideration of dogs coming
from wolf like animals in the recent past.
We determined the earth was flat based on the facts at the time.
No, the roundness of the earth was known or suspected as far back as the greeks.
Eratosthenes even determined the circumference in 240 BC or so.
wikipedia has a nice page on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
You can see the sad effects of religion on science.
This will shock you too.
http://www.genome.gov/12514316
...
About 60 percent of chicken genes correspond to a similar human gene.
However,
researchers uncovered more small sequence differences between
corresponding
pairs of chicken and human genes, which are 75 percent identical on
average,
than between rodent and human gene pairs, which are 88 percent
identical
on
average.
...
Evolution has the explanatory power to account for this.
My Chevy has 98% of the same parts as my neighbors ford, does that mean
evolution occurs in automobiles also?
Are cars alive? No? Then biological processes do not apply.
The ignorance of your "example" is indicative of severe floundering...
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 04:14:46 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
[snip]
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?
It may SEEM that way to you, but the various theories which
involve evolution in no way insist upon such a conclusion. i.e.
they don't predict such a thing. Some of them, mostly the
various "survival of the fittest" kind actually tend to suggest
just the opposite. Those varieties which are MOST successful
will thrive, those that are not will tend to either die out, or be
bread out of existence. Our genetic research is beginning to
suggest exactly such a progression for man. That there was
literally a single "Eve" which gave birth to a set of progeny,
from different "Adams" and those progeny were the most
successful and multiplied, and the rest either mated with them,
or their children died within several generations.
Now, you could try to come up with a hypothesis to support
your point of view and provide some testable conclusions,but I
suspect you'd be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:42:14 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"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.
Why are you deliberately confusing industry with biology????
Your "example" is not applicable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:26:35 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAAB16.A960680A@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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.
Why are you deliberately confusing industry with biology????
Your "example" is not applicable.
That was my point
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:36:12 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAAB16.A960680A@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
"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.
Why are you deliberately confusing industry with biology????
Your "example" is not applicable.
That was my point
You point was to confuse industry with biology????
Hilarious.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 12:15:04 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
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.
So you've taken to breeding cars as a hobby, then? How do
you get them to mate?
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 12:41:39 PM |
|
|
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155057304.177811.174520@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
"monkeyhawk" <monkeyhawk@cox.net> wrote in message
news:A43Cg.79434$fG3.60207@dukeread09...
Evolution is based on a set of hypotheses about the natural world. We
can
test these hypotheses. If we find that the hypotheses produce bogus
predictions, we have to get new hypotheses. That's science. Evolution
has
produced countless hypotheses and they have been found to produce
accurate
predictions time and time again.
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration
system
to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel
injectors,
looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have fuel
injection,
thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately predicted the fuel
injector.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
So you've taken to breeding cars as a hobby, then? How do
you get them to mate?
Slick-50
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 12:28:40 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
[snip]
Most cars can mix fuel and air, they use the same basic cerebration system
to accomplish it. My car does not have a carburetor it has fuel injectors,
looking at some foreign made cars I noticed they also have fuel injection,
thus I can conclude that Evolution has accurately predicted the fuel
injector.
Evolution doesn't predict WHAT changes will occur, only why and
how.
This does not prove however that my park avenue use to be an Omni.
Evolution does not say that individual organisms evolve. It says
that
the off spring do. Your Park Avenue is based upon designs that
predate it, which were different. It was a gradual series of changes
that
brought about your Park Avenue.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lloyd King" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 04:21:41 PM |
|
|
"Billy" <nevermind@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6T1Cg.110472$iU2.45232@fed1read01...
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.
Everybody finds that hard to believe. Evolution certainly doesn't say that
any such thing has happened, nor could happen. Your lack of understanding
of evolution is broad and deep. It's all changes that you would say are
"still a butterfly", until one day you look at all the accumulated "still
a..." changes and you see that the original organism and the current
organism are not "still the same." Takes a long time, though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
09 Aug 2006 10:40:04 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<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.
Only fundies show their ignorance by claiming evolution says cats
give birth to birds.
Are you really this ignorant, or just desperate?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Billy" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
10 Aug 2006 10:27:28 AM |
|
|
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAAA94.E7CE9FB8@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<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.
Only fundies show their ignorance by claiming evolution says cats
give birth to birds.
Are you really this ignorant, or just desperate?
Now you are trying to hurt my feelings, maybe you are not all that evolved
after all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
12 Aug 2006 10:36:31 PM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:44DAAA94.E7CE9FB8@hotmMOVEail.com...
Billy wrote:
<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.
Only fundies show their ignorance by claiming evolution says cats
give birth to birds.
Are you really this ignorant, or just desperate?
Now you are trying to hurt my feelings, maybe you are not all that evolved
after all.
Still dodging I see.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 11:59:32 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1155049057.116604.312520@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
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,
Actually, you have it backwards, genus categories are mans
attempt to organize and categorize the wide variety of organisms
that evolution has produced. The evolution came first, the division
of it into various categories was done by man, after evolving into
an organism which could understand the differences and categorize
them. Genus, or any of the other categories that we created
weren't based on an inablity to mutate beyond certain limits,
they were intended to bring some order to an otherwise rather
continuous population of variation. We divide white light into
constituent colors, but it is a continuous variation from red
to blue. We just arbitrarily divide it into a select groups of
"colors which represent a RANGE of wavelengths.
that some how a cat gave birth to a bird or vice versa,
No where will you find a theory or prediction that a cat gave birth
to a bird.
and time
is just the magical factor in all of this. That is the part that I find hard
to believe.
If you can believe that a cat can give birth to another kind of cat,
then all you have to believe is that over time, due to various
external pressures and internal mutations, the cats can become
so different that they can't mate anymore. And after an even
longer time that they will become so different we might call
one a "leopard" and another a "lion". After an even longer time
the animal which gave birth to these variations became extinct
and no longer exists. If you don't believe it, come up with a
testable hypothosis on why such gradual changes and extinctions
can't occur.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
07 Aug 2006 11:01:23 AM |
|
|
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
But no one has yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
[snip]
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.
You are confusing human classifications with anything truly
significant. Speciation is being used here as basically meaning
that two animals are not able to combine and reproduce. You
were presented with two examples of that. You seem to assign
some signficance to the fact that we still group them in larger
common categories. It is akin to saying "but they're still
insects" or "they're still mamals". They have gone through
significant enough physical changes to become a new organism
which is the process you seem to be concerned with. Do
you have some scientifically defined span of change you feel
is impossible?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 09:54:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Billy wrote:
<firelock_ny@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154964779.246290.229930@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Billy wrote:
[snip]
But no one has yet
come up with how increasing the variance within one species lead to the
emergence of another new species.
[snip]
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.
You are confusing human classifications with anything truly
significant. Speciation is being used here as basically meaning
that two animals are not able to combine and reproduce. You
were presented with two examples of that. You seem to assign
some signficance to the fact that we still group them in larger
common categories. It is akin to saying "but they're still
insects" or "they're still mamals". They have gone through
significant enough physical changes to become a new organism
which is the process you seem to be concerned with. Do
you have some scientifically defined span of change you feel
is impossible?
Of course he doesn't. Any observed span of change, even if
it were from a dinosaur to a chicken, he'd dismiss as too small,
moving the goalposts to suit.
--
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nothing Wrong With Kansas |
08 Aug 2006 10:30:36 AM |
|
|
wrote:
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
Billy wrote:
< > wrote in message
[snip]
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.
You are confusing human classifications with anything truly
significant. Speciation is being used here as basically meaning
that two animals are not able to combine and reproduce. You
were presented with two examples of that. You seem to assign
some signficance to the fact that we still group them in larger
common categories. It is akin to saying "but they're still
insects" or "they're still mamals". They have gone through
significant enough physical changes to become a new organism
which is the process you seem to be concerned with. Do
you have some scientifically defined span of change you feel
is impossible?
Of course he doesn't. Any observed span of change, even if
it were from a dinosaur to a chicken, he'd dismiss as too small,
moving the goalposts to suit.
Well, this is probably true, but the larger point really bears upon
the common misunderstanding of the scientific process and the
nature of "proof". A hypothosis is generally untested. A theory
typically | | | |
