And the ignorant shall inherit the Earth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
I think instead of picking on Mr Darwin, why not ask Dr. SJ Gould of Harvard University and see what his opinion on evolution is.
The really sad thing is... Dr. "SJ" Gould has been dead for some time now, so way to stay up on the issue... Luckily as greenburke has pointed out he left enough for us to read.
Yeah he was an evolutionist... To his credit, he was semi unbiased in the fact that he could imagine evolution to be false...
So here's the thing that upsets me "jollieollie"... that I have to include you into my scientific circle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jollyollie
there is no debate
.....really???? Because I'm pretty sure it's the Theory of Evolution and not... The LAW of Evolution....
The problem with some people is that they believe something to the point of it being infallable.
Don't get me wrong I believe in the mechanism of evolution. We have seen it. Evolution in the sense of adaptation. I have recently got intouch with an old professor of mine that happens to study invasive species. {classic example being the galapogos finches} Well her studies have shown that these invasive species she works on Eurytemora affinis, and she has shown that..."common-garden experiments revealed evolutionary shifts in osmotic tolerance and life history during freshwater invasions. Freshwater invasions are accompanied by evolutionary increases in freshwater tolerance and reduced saltwater tolerance".
http://www.zoology.wisc.edu/faculty/Lee/Lee.html
The problem is this is still a related species..to the original "wild-type" species.. You do the math from there Pathogoras..I don't want to explain the whole thing because I tire..
Greenburke, you sane bastard, I love your retorts.. I feel you are single handedly defending the creationist mind, and well for that matter. I wish I was doing an more exemplary job in my camp. (although I leave room to remind everyone... though I believe in evolution there is room for "anti" evolutional theories)....The question you ignored the other day that I wish you had answered.... The hominids...will these serve as an example for a transitional species????
An open letter.. to jollie ollie
First of all don't pity my kids. Pity is such a christian/religious ideal, and since you obviously have no room for religion, why bother putting forth half the effort.
Secondly why would you pity my kids? Because they would be cognitively (and dont forget sexier!!!) better off than jollie ollie produced children...Oh wait, that's envy..
Thirdly, so a "fundamentalist bullie" has no right in an open forum, but someone that coins "dotard" is? You had to be the captain of the debate team.
Fourthly. Evolution isn't an anti-Christian theory. Did you remember there are other religions out there?
5. Golden Rings
6thly- Citing peoples' work obviously shows that there has been research into the idea. Since maybe possibly you are omniscient, you should gather all your ideas by spontaneous clairvoyance. Us "dotards" will use data, feelings, beliefs, research...etc. to compile ours.
7thly - Why am I taking issue with you, since I believe in evolution? Lately I feel I have been in the creationist camp defending them from people like you.
8thly - Don't quote the whole passage, what a waste of time for us that actually CAN READ, and do read what people post.
Lastly - My @#$%ing point is... Science has error, as the best judgements do. You are a fool to believe in something so passionately that could ultimately be wrong. If you are a "Scientist" as you claimed earlier you would atleast allow others to say evolution isn't bulletproof, because all the evidence isn't quite there yet.
some discussion, more quotes
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamuscubed
Very Good,
Are these merely the twigs we place down to suggest relatedness?
Even if all these "species" are infact all subspecies of the homo, or even if they are the same species of homo, if you are so inclined to believe, they no longer exist. We are the living proof, because something caused them to go extinct. Maybe you shall argue that H. erectus cannot beget a homo sapien. I cannot prove you wrong, therefore if you are not wrong, then you must be right! Well no, you are just not wrong, yet..
It is only through your variance that so "weakens each species" that slightly different organisms occur. This is the only thing that has to be believed for the model of evolution to work. Slightly changing orgainism produce slightly different organisms. So called "sub species"... If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model. Subspecies are proof of evolution because eventually with/with out human care, something will die off, leaving what is left behind as the blue print of what works in the present environmental conditions...Which happen to be fairly stable as of lately...
I liked your post and agreed with it Jamuscubed. The ideas about micro-evolution are good. I like the term adaptation, but that's just a matter of nit-picking. It would be cool if those finches could micro-evolve so much that looked look like creatures from "Where the Wild Things Are," these thoughts inspire the imagination.
Mircro-evloutions
Wolfs, coyotes, springer spaniels, poodles- all dogs. The cross-breeding issue is fun to observe, but there are limitations. Those dogs as big as horses, mastiffs, they retain dog qualities. They get as big as horses, but will they ever turn into a clydsdale, or a mast-dale? No. Coakroches, are becoming resillent to bug spray, will the coakroach ever be hammer proof? No. There are boundaries limitations. Animals and plants are pre-packed with a bunch of information, so they can adapt, but they won't ever take on new "blueprints". Animals and plants work with the DNA they have. The sub-species are just re-aranged data, and the sun-standard of the orignal version. Sub-species wouldn't become new species, but they can be a remnant of the original extinct species.
"If the original organisms go extinct to leave only the slightly different ones what is the only blue print left life has to read from? Not the extinct model."--jamuscubed
Not only would an animal have to borrow blue-prints to cross-species, but, "Each successive speciation change would require a totally new and different—but highly exacting code to be in place on its very first day of its existence as a unique new species." -(evolution-facts.org)
A teacher once told my class about these parrots (i think they were parrots), down in South America. These parrots were isolated from the other parrots so over time their features became more and more original and bizzare. I raised my hand and asked, "Isn't this just a case of lots and lots of inbreeding?" He seemed flustered, the question was a bit straightfoward for a science disscussion... and of course the parrots were all still parrots.
DNA
When evolutionist try to explain away DNA with answers like the following theory, they move away from the definition of the word theory (theory-A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.)
"All the complicated DNA in each life-form, and all the DNA in every other life-form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest.
"Instantly, they automatically knew how to produce additional cells, and their DNA began dividing (cells must continually replenish themselves or the creature quickly dies), their cells began making new ones, and every new cell could immediately do the myriad of functions that the first creature, an amoeba, can and must do.
"That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they in turn more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc." -(evolution-facts.org)
Boundaries
"'The transfer of information from nucleic acid to nucleic acid, or from nucleic acid to protein may be possible, but transfer from protein to protein, or from protein to nucleic acid is impossible."—*Francis Crick, "Central Dogma," quoted in *Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 77.
"The Central Dogma is an important scientific principle and means this: The complex coding within the DNA in the cell nucleus decides the traits for the organism. But what is in the body and what happens to the body cannot affect the DNA coding. What this means is this: Species cannot change from one into another! All the members in a species (dogs, for example) can only be the outcome of the wide range of "gene pool" data in the DNA, but no member of that species can, because of the environment or what has happened to that individual, change into another species. Only changes in the DNA coding can produce such changes; nothing else can do it." -(evolution-facts.org)
"Normal variations can operate, but only within a certain range specified by the DNA for that particular type of organism. Within this range are all the possible variations to be found within each species.
"Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231.
"DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed." -(evolution-facts.org)
Victors hail US evolution ruling
Quote:
A US court decision to ban the teaching of "intelligent design" has been hailed by anti-creationism campaigners. A judge ruled in favour of 11 parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, who argued that Darwinian evolution theory must be taught as fact in biology lessons.
School administrators had argued that life on Earth was too complex to have evolved on its own.
Intelligent design activists criticised the ruling, saying it would marginalise beliefs based on religion.
For those fighting the policy of the Dover school board, the judicial ruling offered a boost to the constitutional separation of church and state.
A majority of US states have seen some form of challenge to the pre-eminence of Darwinian evolution theory in the curriculum of publicly-funded schools since 2001.
"We have a federal judge ruling that intelligent design is in fact non-science and that it is religion," said Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
"That's going to be extremely useful as we combat intelligent design in other states."
'Breathtaking inanity'
The BBC's James Coomarasamy, in Washington, said the decision by Republican judge John Jones was a landmark ruling and represents quite a blow to religious conservatives.
In his ruling, Judge Jones demolished assertions by members of Dover's former school board, or administrators, that the theory of intelligent design (ID) was based around scientific rather than religious belief.
He accused them of "breathtaking inanity", of lying under oath and of trying to introduce religion into schools through the back door.
The judge said he had determined that ID was not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In a 139-page written ruling regularly studded with criticism of the defendants' arguments, the judge said: "Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."
Peter Briggs of the Family Research Council, a conservative group, described the ruling as a dangerous precedent.
"That's a terribly slippery slope if we're going to say in a democracy, in a free country, that people who are motivated by religion are excluded from the public script."
Wider issue
The ruling is not binding for schools outside Dover, but it is expected to have an impact in the wider debate over ID and the more overtly religious theory of creationism, which has long been banned from US schools.
Earlier this year, the state of Kansas passed into law the requirement that students be told that the theory of evolution was "controversial" when studying biology.
In Georgia, a federal court has been considering whether stickers questioning evolution placed on biology textbooks at one school are unconstitutional.
ID has also received backing from US President George W Bush, who has said schools should make students aware of the concept.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4547734.stm
