Posted on 08/22/2005 3:29:51 AM PDT by Pharmboy
And what of the times he had other nations virtually wipe out all but a remnant of Israel? A lot of lessons are being taught to all of mankind in the old testament through the history of the Jews, their suffering, conquests, instructions, failure to follow those instructions and on and on. And it culminates in the life, death and ressurection of Jesus, the Christ.
The idea is that humans have certain rights, which can only be adbridged, never alienated, because such rights are inextricably linked to the very notion of what it means to be human.
I'll do what I can.
"It was heretofore my assumption that one defining, and really inarguable, feature of what constitutes a species (at least a species that requires sexual reproduction, not a one-cell creature)is that cross-breeding of two identifiably seperate species would not result in fertile offspring, if offspring at all. I would call the goats in my example breeds, as a farmer would, not species. Holstein vs. Jersey...etc.
I'm assuming no one else has answered your question.
The definition of species is a difficult concept to pin down, simply because nature very seldom shows us a sharp demarcation between groups of related animals. If you view two highly disparate species it is very easy to differentiate between them. However since most differences between groups are in reality a continuum of morphological variation, seeing that demarcation is at times less than obvious. We are a species that needs to classify, whether it is a simple classification between those other organisms that eat us and those that we eat, as our ancestors had to develop, or the complex classification needed in formal logic. Unfortunately classification is necessarily discrete, where it becomes necessary for us to pigeonhole whatever objects we are classifying, in this case objects that are inherently difficult to place. In most cases the decision to place an organism into one or another taxonomic classification is more or less arbitrary.
When it comes down to it, this isn't very satisfying to our natural desire to view things in black and white, good and bad, friend or foe, so a number of different taxonomic 'schools of thought' have arisen in an attempt to make classification more satisfying. Most of these schools consider their method correct and every other method of classification overly restricting. This is why, along with the arbitrariness of any pigeonholing, it can become confusing to pin the species label on a specific population.
There is a 'working' definition of species that, although somewhat fluid, is fairly commonly used and is where most people get the idea of viable offspring being the main species property. It can be viewed from two different angles; what characterizes a single species and what differentiates two separate species.
A single species is a population where gene flow can occur between the extremes of morphology within the species. This is why dogs are still considered a single species even though you will not see a Great Dane breeding with a Tea cup Poodle. Genes from a Great Dane can still reach the TC Poodle through the intermediate sized dogs. Breed the Great Dane to a Standard Poodle, take the offspring of that pairing and breed it to a Miniature Poodle the offspring of which is bred to a Toy Poodle and that offspring is bred to a TC Poodle. Gene flow.
This causes problems with ring species however, such as in the Greenish Warbler species where there are a number of subspecies that will interbreed on occasion with their immediate neighbours, but the two subspecies physically (location) and genetically farthest from the parent species will not interbreed even though their ranges overlap. If the parent species were to become extinct, the question of whether or not the two end subspecies are actually different species would be settled. The gene flow would end. They would then be separate species because they no longer have a path for genes to flow along. If you were to take a gamete from a member of each of the two species and combine them they could still produce a viable zygote. This will never happen in nature however because they do not interbreed.
Creationist speciation on the other hand requires a cat to give birth to a dog, something that evolution has never claimed would or could happen.
If you truly believe that we 'evos' refuse to answer questions I suggest you read a few other threads on the debate taking note of the relative positions of the two groups. The anti-evos ask questions, make assertions, and reproduce false information. The evos will generally answer in great detail. Search for the name 'ichnuemon' who is an evo who loves to answer questions.
Thanks for the effort.
We both know...
You are a better man than I, says he.
Thanks, I didn't have enough time, I had to go get my eyes examined.
Ah, shucks. You guys are just too good to me.
If evolution has nothing to do with the existance of God, why are you so worked up on the subject? Do you get this excited about Black Holes, Fermat's Theorem, or other areas of conjectural science?
"The remainder of your Supplications were made in the form of Public Prayer, and do not count for anything. It may please you to know, however, that we bunch them together with the prayers of others such as yourself, and use them as 'wind' to impede the progress of ships of improper peoples."Office of the Recording Angel
Letter to Abner Scofield, Coal Dealer, Rochester, NY [paraphrased]
Letters to the Earth -Mark Twain
I think the Creationist definition of species is pretty fluid. As long as it can't possibly happen it's acceptable. Trying to get them to understand that nothing happens outside of species is like moving an outhouse...
All of your rights are limited to the extent that they cannot impenge on the rights of others. It is the business of government to codify and enforce those limitations.
No government is perfect. We have institutions to minimise the power of government, but we generally agree to accept laws whether they are perfect or not.
The post I was responding to said rights could not be abridged.
You're going to milk this for all it's worth aren't you?
No sorry, but this is stupid. You're mixing apples and orang utans. I mean just what does the one have to do with the other?
If somebody steals my nukes in the basement, has my right to own nukes been repudiated? Oh dang, I never had the right to own nukes in the first place.
Or do you claim I have this right?
Another one who never read the preamble.
Well, duh... guess again
What the preamble is telling you is to arm yourself and your fellow citizens and revolt against those who would abridge your rights.
Wha... no sh|t!! Well, you could - nay, you should do that but this doesn't change the fact that you didn't (or still don't) have the rights you are now fighting for.
And believe me, I know what I'm talking about. In the country where I've been born we didn't have the right of free speech (as well as many other rights e.g. owning a typewriter for instance or owning a truck if you weren't an accomplished member of the party).
Did we want to have those rights? You betcha, but we didn't have them. Period.
We decided to vote with our feet and emigrate (and believe me that wasn't as easy as it sounds). Others weren't as lucky to get out and a bit more than half a year later the proverbial sh!t hit the fan and the Old Bastard and his Evil Wife were put to the wall and shot.
Sadly more and more folks either don't understand that or they don't care.
Unfortunately that may be so but I'm certainly not one of them.
Would you also complain about arrogance if the subject were being allowed to do surgery without advanced training instead of critiquing evolution without training?
***Well, yes, but I wouldn't have as much of a leg to stand on. I guess I just don't like arrogance. Oh well, that's my issue.
Moving on to your point, the surgeon is performing a valuable service and should have the advanced training. What we're talking about is whether the education establishment should present ID side by side with abiogenesis. The education folks don't rise to your level of needed expertise, so your analogy isn't so strong there. Part of that problem is a side issue in itself.
What I have noticed is that there appear to be a few scientists (a whopping 400 world wide) who critique evolution and DO have training. These are the brave souls who can withstand the ridicule of their peers, so my suspicion is that there are more behind this number. What is the critical mass number of scientists with training who critique the theory? Apparently we have reached that critical mass, because the President of the US has taken notice. So I look forward to a positive discussion and a dropping of the arrogance from both sides.
Like so may you conflate inalienable rights, liberty interests and civil law. The problem seems to be the opinion that everything is a fundamental inalienable right, it's not. An inalienable right to life or property necessarily means that you can't impinge on somebody elses, that should be self evident. It doesn't however restrcit ones right to his own life or property. See the difference?
No government is perfect. We have institutions to minimise the power of government, but we generally agree to accept laws whether they are perfect or not.
Read the DOI again JS. Pay attention to "rights" and the "purpose of government".
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.