Skip to comments.Kibble for Thought: Dog diversity prompts new evolution theory
Posted on 12/21/2004 8:45:42 AM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Pygmies and Zulus could still meet in the middle, so to speak.
The definition of "species" is not willingness.
My wife's little yippy dog mates with a soccer ball all day long. They ain't the same species (although I always have an urge to kick both).
The prerequisite is: "Can they mate without artificial help?" If so, go to next test. If not, then not the same species.
Ergo, little yippy dogs and really big dogs are no longer the same species.
My mutt is half border collie, half purebred miniature Lab.
Just about the harriest beast I ever met, I found one of his hairs on the floor and it measured 14 inches.
My neighbor insists my hound is smarter and more likeable than alot of people he meets. At 13, he's doing fine.
"Interesting, but terribly disturbing."
WFT are you babbling about? While the origins and specifics of the Big Bang might be more than a little hazy, the evidence for it is pretty abundant (look up the work of Hubble). The evidence for evolution is even more abundant. We're now finding the genetic mechanisms that let it happen; we've understood the basic cause-and-effect principles of nature that drive it, and the fossils show the trail of it.
Wave your hands all you want. Rant all you want. Creationists will occupy the same hallowed ground as the hollow-earthers in the history books. If they persist, they will drag their religion down with them.
Some cats do behave strangely. I had a couple watch "Forever Amber" on the television a few years ago. I thought that was strange because the both hated the book.
When your fruit flies won't evolve, just call the one who notices "superstitious"...
Maaaan quit yippin'. Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.
The Five Crises in Evolutionary Theory, by Dr. Ray Bohlin
1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
2. The total failure of origin of life studies to produce a workable model
3. The inability of evolutionary mechanism to explain the origin of complex adaptations
4. The bankruptcy of the blind watchmaker hypothesis
5. The biological evidence that the rule in nature is morphological stability over time and not constant change.
Raymond G. Bohlin is a graduate of the University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), and the University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology)
Joseph Boxhorn, author of the talk-origins 'FAQ' on Speciation, makes a bold promise from the outset in his choice of title for his paper: 'Observed Instances of Speciation.' Any rational person visiting this site will naturally expect to find a list of cases where scientists, under controlled experimental conditions, have actually observed the process of speciation taking place.
However, anyone expecting to find such a list in Boxhorn's 'FAQ' is due for a major disappointment. It is true that Boxhorn does list a number of scientific observations, yet -- almost incredibly -- not a single one of these observations can be described as 'speciation' in the Darwinian sense, except by employing the kind of Double-Think used by officials at George Orwell's Ministry of Truth.
Proponents of evolution often attempt to discredit creation by pointing to occurrences of microevolution, such as speciation, adaptation, etc. To the evolutionist, microevolution is vindication for their belief in the much larger macroevolution. Their belief is that if these microevolutionary changes have enough time to accumulate, then eventually this will lead to a macroevolutionary change. And therefore, in their way of thinking, if microevolution is a well established fact, macroevolution must logically be an established fact as well.
I think you should probably rethink your test with special consideration given to Pfizer.
One of my sons said he could breathe underwater, and the others thought he was evolving, but we concluded that he's really a space alien.
Does this mean Viagra has brought about a new human species? I mean, talk about your artificial help...
Sounds like it!
LOL. But, alas, not my test. It's in every Bio 101 text book.
And, with the horse answer above, in normal conditions, humans can normally mate without the help of little pills, so they are the same species, even if help is sometimes used.
If not, I would be of a different species than a democrat, as I would not consider mating with one without the help of tequila.
So...this has something to do with Typing Dogs......?
> When your fruit flies won't evolve, just call the one who notices "superstitious"...
Uh-huh. A good example of replacing critical thinking with blind faith. Bravo.
I know that is what my Weim was originally bred to do, but unfortunately she flunked out of obedience school...3 times!
Don't forget the Freemasons...
> How can someone bring down his religion by believing in it?
Because you are focussing on the fairy-tale, allegorical aspects of it and demanding that it be seen as scientific truth. Creatinists are making it *very* easy to dismiss Christians as a whole as a bunch of uneducated superstitious boobs. It is a slow process, but it's certain death for a religion to be laughed at.
> The evidence for evolution is far from conclusive.
No, it's not. It's quite conclusive. The only real debates left are the details.
> it necessarily points to spontaneous generation of life.
Defien your terms. At what point to complex chemicals become "life" in your view? Is a virus "alive" if so, scientists have assembled synthetic virii from much simpler components. The virus was as alive as virii get, and was able to reproduce.
That was in my Philosophy 101 book. :-}
You don't see that this statement argues against your spontaneous generation point?
No, it does not. What scientists do is not magic, not supernatural. They brought chemical componants together in the right environment, and the end result was a living virus.
Hmmm. Wonder why Christianity has done so well throughout history when so many of its adherents faced not only laughter but certain death for their beliefs. If your assessment above is any indication of your ability to assess facts and evidence, well, guess we know who is more likely to subscribe to a fairy tale.
I see no conflict in evolution and Creationism.
I suspect the evolutionists have it a little wrong, and I suspect the creationists are reading the Bible a little wrong.
I bet it will shake out that: God, the law-giver, created laws of nature. These shake out to be evolution in some form or fasion.
The result is consistent with Intelligent Design. Indeed, anyone who bake bread and does it just right creates something out of seeming chaos.
God spinkled in just the right ingredients in the Universe and baked us up just how he wanted. He knew exactly how the bread would rise.
The Bible is the recipe.
Evolution is the science of the rising bread (from the perspective of the yeast, no less).
I recall very asute readers of prophecy being very surprised by Christ coming along. They expected a military hero, I believe.
They read their Bible wrong. In hindsight, their error could not be more obvious.
Same with the Church going after Galileo. They relied on the Bible (and their pre-existing beliefs) to say Galelio was all wet for his Earth-is-Sphere-that-goes-around-the-Sun theory. Got him excommunicated, in fact.
Knowing what I know now, when I read Genesis, it seem perfectly consistent with the Earth going around the Sun, although I see how someone could take it differently.
Once the details are worked out, I bet it will all harmonize, as well.
(Take this all with a grain of salt. The Big Bang theory always sounded like God saying "Let there be light . . ." to me.)
scratching himself like a baseball player
either that or practicing for a superbowl half time show
To bastardize Arthur C. Clarke's saying: To the desperately deliberately ignorant, any technology is seen as magic. Evil, competing magic.
I think that was written on the inside door of a stall outside the Philosophy building, too.
There was even a phone number.
Reminds me of the joke:
God and a scientist arguing about the creation of life.
The scientist says, "I bet I can make a virus out of this dirt."
To which God replies, "I'll take the bet. But you have to use your own dirt."
> Wonder why Christianity has done so well throughout history when so many of its adherents faced not only laughter but certain death for their beliefs.
Because Christinaity had political power. Jsut a few hundred years ago, anyone who would DARE suggest somethign like evolution would be burned at the stake.
But now, Christianity is fading from the western world. It's power in Europe, formerly the central base of Christianity, is quite weak. Christians who bray nonsense about Creationism do NOT help their cause.
If you isolate virii in the marriage suite from other organisms how do they reproduce?
All my dogs are smarter and more likeable than a lot of people I meet......!especially liberals!......
> Maaaan quit yippin'.
Translation: "Please stop telling people the truth."
> Your theory has more holes than swiss cheese.
All theories have holes. However, Creationism is nothign *but* a hole.
The stuff you copied-and-pasted was amusing, but not enlightening except to show what depths of intellectual dishonesty Creationists will go to.
Quite so. What scientist do, ideally, is intelligent manipulation of pre-existing materials.
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.
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.
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
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
They all agreed that that was brilliant!
> 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.
I know someone who is EXACTLY like that dog, and she IS a Government worker!......
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.
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.
> 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.
LOL. Keep telling yourself that, it will warm you on these cold winter nights.
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.