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 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 261-265 next last
To: jwalsh07
> The Big Bang is a creation event.
And your evidence that the universe was created by an intelligence is.......
Waiting.....
To: orionblamblam
To: jwalsh07
So you're saying your evidence of a creator of the universe is weak? On that we can agree.
If you actually find some, though, let us all know.
To: orionblamblam
No, I'm saying your argument that an unintelligent something created time, matter, energy and the Laws of Physics ex nihilo laughable. Does that clarify?
To: MeanWestTexan
So to answer your quandry: "we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator"
This assumes God made a mistake in putting the Universe in motion.
No, this does not assume a mistake. Look at it this way: if you were the Creator of a pot of stew, you might put all the meat, vegetables, seasonings, and water into the pot, turn on the heat, and walk away, returning in an hour to see what happened. The ingredients would interact, then, according to the conditions in which you had set them. After an hour, you'll have a certain type of stew, with a particular look and flavor. If you did the same thing later, using all the same materials and the same amount of heat, for the same length of time, you would get exactly the same stew each time.
However, you probably wanted a particular result, not whichever result you get from letting the stew cook itself for an hour. So, rather than walk away and come back later, you watch the pot and make your adjustments: you stir it, you add seasonings at certain points, you adjust the level of heat. After an hour of that, you end up with a stew of different flavor and color than you would have if you had left it alone, but it is the stew you really wanted; it was not a mistake.
Now, thousands of years later, scientists discover remnants of your stew preserved in amber, and they want to determine how it was prepared. They have a good idea about the meat you used, and the vegetable, and the water. They also know about the stove and what its capabilities are. So, from that, they surmise that all of these elements were placed in a pot, the stove was turned on, and it cooked for an hour, and that if they do the same thing, they can reproduce your stew. But they never are able to reproduce it, because the rules they are following are not sufficient to explain the result, and they have no idea that you did not allow the stew to cook itself, but manipulated it along the way. In other words, their theory of the Evolution of Stew is flawed because it cannot possibly predict the manipulations of the stew creator that went on during the cooking.
To: Red Badger
You're absolutely right- the only time I've been bitten by a dog- it was a little rugrat!!
To: PatrickHenry
"I was stunned by what I found," says Fondon.
He can't be that educated...he misspelled "stuned".
187
posted on
12/21/2004 2:29:38 PM PST
by
SERKIT
("Blazing Saddles" explains it all.....)
To: fr_freak
I guess I just think God is a better cook than you and knew exactly what He was going to get when He set the whole thing in motion, from the Big Bang, to the asteroid, to Calvary.
Of course, He has the advantage of being omipotent, omnipresent, and existing outside of Time itself (alpha and omega), so I would expect no less.
To: Wisconsin155
Actually wasn't there a study recently that said that some "dogs" aren't even really dogs. But are actually rodents or something breed to look like dogs. I think chihuahua was one of them.
It was an urban legend; a satire news story that a number of sites took as truth.
189
posted on
12/21/2004 2:43:21 PM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!Ah, but)
To: forsnax5
It would appear that Shrek's maternal grandfather didn't have male pattern baldness....
To: MeanWestTexan
The Chinese did this, impregnating female chimps with human sperm. Saruman did it first...
"We had many of these half-orcs to deal with at Helm's Deep."
191
posted on
12/21/2004 4:29:39 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Conspiracy Guy
There are two errors in this picture:
1) No pancake on the Bunny's head.
2) No Viking helmet on the Kitten!
192
posted on
12/21/2004 4:31:51 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: R. Scott
He will take on any dog that offers a challenge, even taking out an adult Rottweiler several years ago when he was much younger and it better shape. I just gotta ask, you piqued my curiosity.
Did he chomp the Rott's balls from underneath, or what?
193
posted on
12/21/2004 4:33:57 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: Mamzelle
Asimov once had a nice animal limerick, it went something like this:
"The Bustard is an exquisite fowl/
With minimal reason to growl/
It escapes what would be
illegitimacy/
By the grace of a fortunate vowel."
That wasn't quite how he rendered it, I just googled the above on "Bustard" and "illegitimacy" together. But I remember him saying he was particularly impressed by the single-word fourth line...
194
posted on
12/21/2004 4:37:31 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: PatrickHenry
If only I could toss in the Civil War, we'd have a real winner here.During the Civil War, most breeds of dogs that are common today didn't exist. Most were developed in the late 19th century or in the 20th century.
195
posted on
12/21/2004 4:41:13 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(Where are you, Miss Beazley?)
To: MeanWestTexan
I respectfully disagree that compatiability requires a disinterested God.[...] It is like how scientist recently showed that the Red Sea can naturally part --- certain wind conditions, tides, and all that. "No miracle!" some cry. "Heresy!" cry others. Well, the miracle was not the parting, the miracle was parting just as Moses showed up with Pharoah on his tail, and then closing back up. I am quite sure God put the wind, tides, etc, in motion a million years ago to get that one just right.
Same with evolution. He created just the exactly right conditions for things to be as he wanted.[...]
Yes, God could intervene and bypass His rules of nature. But why? He made the rules. He knows how they work. Why should he not follow His own rules? So to answer your quandry: "we would never know which species evolved purely from evolutionary mechanisms, and which were given a helping hand by the Creator" This assumes God made a mistake in putting the Universe in motion. ALL were given the exact helping hand by God --- be it by a timely asteroid killing dinosaurs just as those mamals got going, or by parting the Red Sea at the right time. I do not presume that God would make a mistake. I presume He did it right and it is exactly as He designed it.
Very well said. Or, in the words of the Talmud, kol hanissim b'derech hateva, "all miracles happen in a natural way."
To: oyez
ROFLMAO!
Now if it were an IRS-worker's dog, he'd have had intercourse with the other three mutts, just for swank!
Full Disclosure: Insert your own "screwing the pooch" joke here.
197
posted on
12/21/2004 4:43:21 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: EggsAckley
Dogs have Masters
Cats have StaffLOL!
198
posted on
12/21/2004 4:43:56 PM PST
by
Wolfstar
(Where are you, Miss Beazley?)
To: orionblamblam
Free oxygen very rapidly chemicaly bonds with hydrogen and forms water. Under what temperature, pressure, and concentration?
Oxygen molecules, atoms, or ions?
Hydrogen molecules, atoms, or ions?
Double-check your rate constants, not just equilibrium constants...
199
posted on
12/21/2004 4:45:41 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: MeanWestTexan
I guess I just think God is a better cook than you and knew exactly what He was going to get when He set the whole thing in motion, from the Big Bang, to the asteroid, to Calvary.
I don't think you understood my analogy. God is a perfect cook - that is the whole point. We are the ones trying to figure out how He did it. What you're suggesting is exactly the point I brought up earlier - that the only way evolution could be a viable theory alongside belief in God is if God began the process and walked away (a "disinterested" God). Otherwise, if God were active in the process (adding spices) then human beings would have no way to chart evolution on any scientific basis, because God could have changed the conditions at any time.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 ... 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