New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory

Washington Post ^ | September 26, 2005 | Rick Weiss and David Brown

[AntiGuv]

PS.

Annual Revenues

NFL: $4.2 Billion
MLB: $3.5 Billion
NBA: $2.0 Billion
NHL: $2.0 Billion

;^)

[AntiGuv]

Had it peer reveiwed too.

Yep. It was rejected.

[b_sharp]

"The overlapping ends are in the same area, but I'd say the speciation was allopatric. It is caused by differences of adaptation and history enforced by considerable if not total geographic isolation up until the ends reunite.

Would we know that if all the intermediate subspecies were extinct.

[VadeRetro]

Don't think so. Some of this may be hard to sort out given the paucity of data points and the long time frames involved.

[b_sharp]

OK. I'm officially bored.

[bvw]

Considering how few games an NFL team plays, especially versus MLB -- must be a statistical outlier.

[Diamond]

... it seems reasonable to me for the human writers of the Bible to have made some. Review Leviticus chp 11 wherein bats are referred to as birds, review Joshua, chp 10 (I think) where it described the sun going around the earth. The mistakes and errors do not detract from the ethical and moral message and guidance extractable from the Bible.

1. Our 'scientific' definition of 'birds' was not the word available in Hebrew, Greek or any language back then so the definition used to refer to 'bats' is correct for that time - not an error - obviously the word "bird' means any creature that has wings and flies. Hence the so called 'error' is a reading back into the text of a foreign definition of a word - it's a common mistake made by some theological liberals who are trying to find fault with the Scriptures.

2. The reference to the sun setting is not an error - its the way we still talk in phenomenological language.

Cordially,

[muir_redwoods]

So as long as you can explain away the errors and mistakes they aren't errors and mistakes. I get it.

Seat yourself comfortably because there are about 1500 to 2000 more of them for you to work with if you're interested.

The bible is a man made document. It is full of the kinds of errors people make. It is no less valuable as an ethical and moral guide because of these errors and mistakes but it is worthless as a biology text.

[Diamond]

So as long as you can explain away the errors and mistakes they aren't errors and mistakes. I get it.

Explain away? What is there to justify in rejecting the esigetical interpretation of an ancient text based on nothing but the anachronistic importation of a foreign definition of a word?

Seat yourself comfortably because there are about 1500 to 2000 more of them for you to work with if you're interested.

Well, if you have found that many alleged errors it sounds as if you might be reading the text more with a motive of finding its 'errors' than for it's ethical and moral precepts. I'll bet with that many errors and mistakes you'd be bound to think there would be some in the ethical and moral realm of Scripture, too, wouldn't you?

The bible is a man made document. It is full of the kinds of errors people make. It is no less valuable as an ethical and moral guide because of these errors and mistakes but it is worthless as a biology text.

If the Bible were merely a man-made document (as opposed to divinely inspired via human agency) then it wouldn't even have that right either because it countless times refers to itself as the very Word of God, theopneustos . If its human authors are liars in their numerous claims regarding the nature and authority of their writings then they are worthless as ethical and moral guides.

Cordially,

[muir_redwoods]

"If its human authors are liars in their numerous..."

Until you can make the logical distinction between lies (your second unfounded claim of such things) and errors, a reasonable discussion is impossible

[Diamond]

Until you can make the logical distinction between lies (your second unfounded claim of such things) and errors, a reasonable discussion is impossible.

It is a logical conclusion that flows from the premise that God does not make errors, and that persons who 1) claimed to speak or write the very words of God, but 2) made errors, 3) prove their claim of divine authority to be false, and because of the nature of their claims it is reasonable to expect that they either knew or should have known that their words were false. Such writers, if that were the case, could reasonably be called liars, and would thereby be unworthy to be followed as ethical and moral guides.

Cordially,

[frgoff]

When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee,

That would be really cool. If that's what they really did. Genetic mapping is a statistical analysis, not an exact numeration. What they did was take a sampling of DNA chimp, do some statistical modeling on it, and arrive at a probability with a certain level of confidence and error on what the total genome looks like.