Posted on 01/30/2006 10:27:35 PM PST by Sweetjustusnow
Come back when you actually understand the material well enough to come up with an effective rebuttal, instead of this sort of pap.
You're the one who doesn't have any answer to the material, so instead all you can do is lamely ask non sequiturs about needing DNA from extinct animals in order to do modern DNA analysis, when no one with a clue about biology could have made such an elementary error.
Why do you folks try to critique biology when you don't understand the first thing about it?
You're kidding, right? If that's the case, why do they keep screwing up even the most elementary concepts when they try to talk about it, why do they keep asking questions that are answered in the most introductory biology textbook, and why do they keep making hundreds of claims that are demonstrably false, fallacious, or completely idiotic?
You guys are legends in your own minds, but you don't know squat about science, because you keep making the silliest errors about it, the kind that would embarrass the average junior-high-school student.
Tell you what, you've inspired me -- I'm going to start collecting every creationist blunder and screwup, and post the whole list every time some AECreationist tries to declare that *creationists* are the ones who actually understand science. Watch for it!
This is the article. Of course, a lot of it is over my head, but I get the general meaning (I think).
From the conclusion: Both population history/structure and natural selection appear to have shaped the among-region differences observed in the modern human cranium, as represented in these 10 populations taken from Howells' data set. Population history and structure seem to predominate in shaping among-region differences among the nine non-Siberian (Buriat) modern human populations. This is in close agreement with Relethford's (11, 12, 33) analyses. However, when the Siberian (Buriat) population is included in the analysis, cold-mediated natural selection appears to be primarily responsible for the large differences observed between the Siberian (Buriat) sample and the rest of the world. Another analysis by Relethford has also noted associations of craniometric variation with temperature controlling for geographic distance, further bolstering the secondary effect of natural selection on the global distribution of cranial variation (34). This raises the intriguing question of the limits of human cultural buffering when facing the challenges of extreme environments [emphasis added].
You read correctly. From this article it looks like this one population (the Buriat of Siberia) goes against the global pattern and does indeed have cranial differences which are attributed to cold weather.
Nasal shape differences are well-known, but in this case there seems to be an increase primarily in cranial breadth, and to a lesser degree in other cranial measurements.
Half of the statistics are over my head too, but I did a lot of cranial measurements and some different multivariate statistics in grad school, so I can follow the general idea.
Very interesting!
Now, somebody needs to figure out why this one group differs from the rest of the world.
With all due respect, Jonestown is the result of one dogmatic ideology guiding its followers to the same poisonous batch of Kool-Aid.
ROFL!!! You're kidding right? *Please* tell me no one could be this clueless without trolling.
Hint: Jonestown was the result of *religious* belief gone wrong, not the result of people concerned about learning about a scientific subject before they attempt to critique it.
The Reverend Jim Jones founded his own church, the People's Temple. The House of Representatives report on Jonestown states, "A goodly number of middle-class blacks and whites came out of strong fundamentalist religious family backgrounds and were attracted by what they saw as the evangelical nature of People's Temple." Of others who were not so directly religious, the report states, "to the extent that a religious motivation was involved, it was seen chiefly in terms of Jones' seeming concrete application of Judeo-Christian principles."
They drank from it and the rest is history. I bet their loved ones wished that they would have had more outside influence. Wouldnt you agree?
Yes, I'm sure they wish that someone had pointed out that not all which claims to be religious is good or true. If someone had told them to be sure they understand a subject well before drawing conclusions about it, like I frequently do, they might still be alive today.
Now tell me again how you can somehow come to the bizarre conclusion that my advocacy of education and knowledge is somehow "the same poisonous batch of Kool-Aid" as what caused Jonestown. Are you sure you have any clue whatsoever, or are you just posting random accusations because you're unable to refute science on its own merits?
You guys are getting more and more bizarre.
Why don't you psuedo-evolutionists go read something other than science journals for a change, instead of parroting the lies of the neo-Darwinists' essays written by people ignorant of basic skills needed to reason?
Why don't you identify any actual flaws in the material if you think there are any, isntead of issuing bitter broadsides empty of any real content?
BTW-Why the insults instead of reasoned debate?
I don't know, I was wondering that about your insults. Why don't you try reasoned debate for a change, like I do? I provide facts, argument, evidence, research results, etc. I do it so often that whiners goofily accuse me of "spamming" because I provide far more reasoned debate than they can cope with. And all you come back with is insults like accusing me of being like Jim Jones or something. I'm amused that being shown a taste of the overwhelming evidence can drive you so far up the wall that you start spewing hysterical diatribes.
Is debate not needed?
Certainly, which is why I engage in large amounts of debate. Why don't you try it for a change, instead of calling me the next Jim Jones and other hilariously lame insults?
I have just one request for you that will help me understand evolution more clearly. And please do not send me on a wild hunt for info I have already read.
I am flattered that you consider me capable of mind-reading well enough to be able to determine what you have and have not already read.
Explain to me JUST 1 theory in Darwinian Evolution that is no longer in disputed. Surely, something in the millions of papers about the theory of evolution is settled. Right?
Sure. That evolution has occurred. Living things today are not the same as living things in the past, say 200 million years ago. Happy now?
I mean most people in the scientific world agree that the theory of relativity is "solid." Right? Is anything about evolution similar?
Yes, almost all of it.
And by the way, you're laboring under a delusion -- "settled" and "solid" are not synonymous with "no longer in disputed [sic]". The latter standard is impossible to meet, because no matter how solid and settled any conclusion might be, *some* idiot somewhere is going to dispute it, out of mental illness if nothing else. You can still find people who deny that the Earth is spherical, that communism doesn't work, that Americans landed on the Moon in 1969, and that President Bush won the election in 2000, for example. But those issues are still "settled" and "solid", because there is overwhelming evidence supporting them, no significant evidence against them, no rational opposition to them (i.e., no argument that holds water).
Smarter? No, just different fields; I don't know a thing about his exciting field at all.
But I guess I do have some of the patience of an archaeologist.
And you must admit, some of the arguments creationists use would have sent Job over the edge!
And how the very first "imperfect replicator" come into existence?
I wonder how so many creationists actually practice medicine, have PHd.'s in all scientific fields? In your pea-brain, you think one can only understand science if they swear allegience to evolution? Again, why don't you go to your list and post a few of these accusations? Perhaps rather than do document dumps, you can actually hold an in-depth discussion of one issue at a time?
Well, I rather just be quiet and learn. Then I will be better able to think for myself.
And thanks for your help.
Why don't you try to actually deal with the material instead of spewing lame taunts like this one? If this is the best retort you can manage, why even bother? Your kind of response epitomizes the classic aphorism, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt"...
And is it really your contention that science literacy is exclusively a liberal trait? Is that the position you really want to go with? That conservatives are necessarily ignorant of science, or else they aren't "real" conservatives and must be DU trolls? Do you even think these things through before you post them?
Wow, there you go again. Stuck in a rut in the schoolyard taunt department so soon, are you?
And of course, people *never* disagree about religion...
I guess that's why there are several hundred different Christian sects, not to mention the countless different flavors of Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.
Science is *far* more coherent than religion, and has a far higher level of consensus. If you're trying to measure the degree of something's subjectivity by the amount of disagreement, then the "absolute truths" of religion are actually far more subjective than the conclusions of science.
Good point.
So when I read the following...
"The earth's atmosphere did not contain oxygen when the earth formed 4.6 billion years ago. This reducing environment provided favorable conditions for the natural synthesis of the first organic compounds. The first phospholipid bilayer membranes formed along with primitive RNA and DNA genetic molecules. The membranes adsorbed proteins and the hereditary DNA/RNA material. From these organic molecules, the first primitive prokaryote (simple single cell organism lacking a nucleus) arose. Natural selection began."
...you are telling me that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution?
Ah, yes, when you can't actually dispute the material, try to dishonetly imply it must be fudged... And do it with cutesy pictures, because that'll make your empty accusation seem like you actually documented it, right?
The paucity of the anti-evolution position is made clear every day by the utter lameness of the attempted "rebuttals" against it.
Really?
Yes, really.
So there is no interpretation or opinion involved when deciding where fossils belong in the evolutionary tree? It's non-subjective and completely agreed upon because these are data points which can be tested and re-tested, right?
You're missing the point. He's saying that in science, there are right answers and there are wrong answers. It's not like art or literature or politics, where subjectivity actually means something -- where opinions or preferences are legitimate reasons for disagreement. Science is based on objective reality -- there really *are* wrong answers, there really *are* answers that are objectively correct because they match reality, because they account for the facts, because they make the rocket actually reach the Moon instead of crash, etc.
Creationists often like to hand-wave away scientific conclusions as "that's just your opinion" or "well that's what you have faith in, mine's different" etc. No. There really *are* right and wrong answers in science, it's not just one man's opinion about what answer he "likes" or "prefers". Answers in science are not judged subjectively. They work or they don't. They match reality or they don't.
"You're the one who doesn't have any answer to the material, so instead all you can do is lamely ask non sequiturs about needing DNA from extinct animals in order to do modern DNA analysis, when no one with a clue about biology could have made such an elementary error."
We actually have some of this. We now have the mtDNA sequence of the mammoth and we can expect the complete sequence in a few years. So far (based on mtDNA sequence), the mammoth is closer to the Asian elephant than the African elephant - who'd a guessed that?
I'm sure we would all find articles stating that scientists disagree on any number of things. But what's the point?
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.