Skip to comments.
Kibble for Thought: Dog diversity prompts new evolution theory
Science News ^
| 18 December 2004
| Christen Brownlee
Posted on 12/21/2004 8:45:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 261-265 next last
To: RedWhiteBlue
You don't have to convince me. Hell, even the French Poodle can breed with the German Shephard. You get bull fascists with their paws up.
To: orionblamblam
Because Christinaity had political power.If you want to call following some guy who was put to death on a cross "political power" that's your prerogative. To me it looks like sheer weakness. But then, I tend to look at the evidence differently than you.
To: Red Badger
Four men were bragging about how smart their dogs were.
One man was an engineer, the second man was an accountant,
the third man was a chemist, and the fourth was a
government worker.
To show off, the engineer called to his dog. "T-square,
do your stuff." T-square trotted over to a desk, took out
some paper and a pen, and promptly drew a circle, a
square, and a triangle.
Everyone agreed that that was pretty smart.
The accountant said that his dog could do better. He
called to his dog and said, "Spreadsheet, do your stuff."
Spreadsheet went out into the kitchen and returned with a
dozen cookies. He divided them into four equal piles of
three cookies each.
Everyone agreed that that was good.
The chemist said that his dog could do better still. He
called to his dog and said, "Measure, do your stuff."
Measure got up, walked over to the fridge, took out a
quart of milk, got a ten-ounce glass from the cupboard,
and poured exactly eight ounces without spilling a drop.
Everyone agreed that that was pretty impressive.
Then the three men turned to the government worker and
said, "What can your dog do?"
The government worker called to his dog and said, "Coffee
Break, do your stuff." Coffee Break jumped to his feet,
ate the cookies, drank the milk, claimed he had injured
his back while doing so, filed a grievance report for
unsafe working conditions, put in for workers'
compensation, and went home for the rest of the day on
sick leave.
They all agreed that that was brilliant!
143
posted on
12/21/2004 11:30:03 AM PST
by
oyez
(¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
To: Tax-chick
> What scientist do, ideally, is intelligent manipulation of pre-existing materials.
Yes. Sometimes it takes intelligence to create an experiment that reflects a natural setting. But the fact that intelligence is required to create a nature-replicating experiment does not in the slightest imply that intelligence is required in the natural setting itself.
To: oyez
I know someone who is EXACTLY like that dog, and she IS a Government worker!......
145
posted on
12/21/2004 11:35:06 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(If the Red States are JESUSLAND, then the Blue States are SATANLAND......)
To: orionblamblam
But the fact that intelligence is required to create a nature-replicating experiment does not in the slightest imply that intelligence is required in the natural setting itself.Perhaps, perhaps not, but the fact that intelligence has been unable to produce matter, energy and the laws of physics ex nihilo or even offer a rational explanation of same does imply a unique being capable of such wondrous creation.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
Typical, half truths and strawman arguments. The only reason nonsense like this gets real attention, is the scientific illiteracy of the American public. Claiming that evolution is full of holes, does not mean your theory, what ever that is, has any validity. Further, speciation is found extensively in lower order animals, insects and birds in particular. A browse over any encyclopedia would tell you that. I love how creationists have no understanding of what terms like Speciation mean, yet are willing to debate them with extreme fervor.
http://www.micro.utexas.edu/courses/levin/bio304/evolution/speciation.html
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/venable/Papers/pnas99.pdf
Yes, this whole evolution thing is simply a mass world conspiracy. I suppose you should start a letter writing campaign to Notre Dame, Northwestern, etc and tell them that they better drop their evolutionary science program, because creationist have all the answers. Prove your ID theory by positive example, not just negative argument or appealing to authority, and I might take you seriously.
To: orionblamblam
a nature-replicating experiment How do they know it's a "nature-replicating experiment"? Nobody was there to observe the conditions under which, in theory, viruses spontaneously generated from some non-living substance. Circular reasoning.
148
posted on
12/21/2004 11:43:07 AM PST
by
Tax-chick
(Jesus is the reason for the season which begins at sundown on December 24.)
To: jwalsh07
> does imply a unique being capable of such wondrous creation.
Does it? How?
Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that there's some magic being behind it.
To: orionblamblam
Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean that there's some magic being behind it.LOL. Keep telling yourself that, it will warm you on these cold winter nights.
To: Red Badger
I have read that the DNA of a wolf and chihuahua are virtually identical I knew there was a reason I didn't trust the little rats.
Shalom.
151
posted on
12/21/2004 11:49:46 AM PST
by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: Tax-chick
> Nobody was there to observe the conditions...
Pre-biotic conditions on Earth cannot be known with certainty, but they can be known *generally* based on conditions foudn in the rest of the universe. Free oxygen, for example, is astonishingly rare. Somewhere around 95% of the visible mass of the universe is hydrogen; thus hydrogen dominates. Free oxygen very rapidly chemicaly bonds with hydrogen and forms water. Same with methane. And there are no known non-biological processes which will both produce and sustain an oxidizing atmosphere. If you were to kill off *all* life on Earth, Earth would have a carbon dioxide/nitrogen atmosphere relatively soon.
Looking at the rest of the universe, we can make a reasonable approximation of wha tthe pre-biotic atmosphere of the Earth was like. It it not "circular reasoning" to conclude that what holds true most places in the universe would also hold true on Earth. Consequently, a CO2/methane/nitrogen atmosphere on the early Earth is entirely reasonable and consistent with all available information.
To: fishtank
When you bring a dog into your household, you become family.
When you bring a cat into your household, you become staff.
Shalom.
153
posted on
12/21/2004 11:51:11 AM PST
by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: jwalsh07
That's your best response?
To: Conspiracy Guy
It's the end times, I tell ya'. Can the lion lying down with the lamb be far behind?
Shalom.
155
posted on
12/21/2004 11:57:03 AM PST
by
ArGee
(After 517, the abolition of man is complete)
To: ArGee
My Chihuahua thinks she is a wolf!.........
156
posted on
12/21/2004 11:59:27 AM PST
by
Red Badger
(If the Red States are JESUSLAND, then the Blue States are SATANLAND......)
To: Red Badger
Government workers know that they can go back and challenge the system, knowing that they won't be fired.(Well, duh.)
157
posted on
12/21/2004 12:05:54 PM PST
by
oyez
(¡Qué viva la revolución de Reagan!)
To: orionblamblam
Much better than yours on virii and infinitely better than the stock reply you gave.
If evidence points towards a creation event then that implies a Creator.
Your serve.
To: Michael_Michaelangelo
"
Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc."
I thought creationists viewed speciation as an example of impossible "macro-evolution." If creationists are now calling speciation "mere micro-evolution," where are they drawing the macro-evolutionary boundry?
159
posted on
12/21/2004 12:12:44 PM PST
by
atlaw
To: MeanWestTexan
I see no conflict in evolution and Creationism.
I do. The only scenario I can see where the two would be compatible is if the Creator set the mechanisms in motion and then walked away. However, neither Christians nor Jews, nor any religion that I know of, believe that God is no longer active in the affairs of men, in which case, evolution could not be relied upon as an explanation of current species.
Here's where it falls apart: let's say that God put some simple organisms on the Earth and established the rules by which they would develop (evolution). Given that He is all powerful, He could, at any time, simply bypass the normal evolutionary process. Now, though evolution may remain the main mechanism by which organisms develop on Earth, we would no longer be able to rely on it as a theory to explain all species because, at some point in the fossil and DNA records, a jump was made that didn't follow the rules. That would then put into question ALL of the conclusions we reach from the evidence we gather, because we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator. If evolution were ever to be a science by which we could determine origins and predict outcomes, there would have to be no external variables.
To sum up, from a logical standpoint, you cannot believe in both a Creator AND evolution (as a predictable set of rules - a science).
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 261-265 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson