White House to honor prominent evolutionist

Orange County Register ^ | May 9, 02 | Gary Robbins

[Jonathan]

Well I'll be a monkey's uncle!!

Ask a biologist if he can explain the evolution of reciprocal altruism. Can't - it alone debunks the faith of scientists in their evolutionary god.

But they won't ever mention that.

[stanz]

What does this have to do with biomechanics?

[Bullah]

Don't you know anything? These evolutionists are bigger crackpots than Galileo or Copernicus.

[spqrzilla9]

Actually, there is some research being done on the evolutionary implications of cooperative behaviors.

[Ken H]

A quick look at Democrat presidential hopefuls pretty much refutes ID and confirms Darwin, IMO.

[Waco]

The BIG error here is in linking evolution to religon in ANY way. "Religon" was around long before the Christen era. Only man of all life has a "psychological need" for "something" to handle the unknown or what he cannot understand or fathom. Religeon (sp) answers this need. Man will ALWAYS look to it to comfort his "psyche". No matter what science "discovers" it will be around eons from now.

[bzrd]

The difference in amino-acid sequence of the same proteins in different species [crystallin or hemoglobin for ex.] changes at the same rate over time, regardless of population size.

This is the theoretical basis for the molecular clock and according to neo-darwinian theory, it shouldn't exist, as it trivializes the role of natural selection in evolution. What this suggests is that chance plays a greater role in evolution than does natural selection. And, as micro-evolution is essentially a process that only optimizes existing genes according to enviromental or selection pressure, it would follow that macro-evolution would require the production of new genes using random chance acting on randomized DNA.

Bloody hopeless...

I wonder if this will come up at the award ceremony at the White House?

Brian.

[gcruse]

God inflicts the pain of birth on women to punish them for Eve's sin.

If death does no more than provide relief from hearing such superstitious poltroonery, then it is to be welcomed.

[DeweyCA]

God inflicts the pain of birth on women to punish them for Eve's sin.

I know that you will be viewed as a simpleton for your answer, but it is interesting that your answer, written over 3,000 years ago, is relevant to today's questions. It seems like the other proposals provided so far on this thread don't have a definitive answer as to why the birth canal has continued to be small compared to the baby's head.

[HiTech RedNeck]

What this suggests is that chance plays a greater role in evolution than does natural selection.

Coincidence is God acting anonymously :-)

BTW - The people who would demand earthly perfection before accepting a creation are missing the point that there is a higher goal. If the goal was only to have a physical creation, then of course it would now and always be perfect. If the goal, however, included allowing the creation to suffer, then it needn't be perfect.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Without implicitly acknowledging some supra-natural reality, not even "superstition" can be condemned; and truth is no better than lies.

[general_re]

I'm no biomechanic either, but what I do know is that the narrowness of the female pelvis is a result of the gait changing to permit bipedalism. In order to have a reasonably smooth gait when upright, the pelvis had to narrow somewhat - compare the way chimps walk upright when they're on two feet. It's more of a "waddle" than a walk, and running upright is right out of the question for them. It's a tradeoff - they get easier births, and we gain some altitude.

The incomplete formation of a baby's skull is a partial solution to the problem - the fontanels allow the infant's skull to compress somewhat as it passes through the birth canal. Those of you who have witnessed a birth will probably have noticed that babies tend to come out pointy-headed in many cases. Another part is the hormone "relaxin", which softens and loosens the (anatomical parts alert - stop reading now) cervix and the vaginal canal, and makes it a bit more flexible and open, along with the pelvis.

Like I said, it's only a partial solution to the problem of squeezing a baby through the birth canal, though - as my wife readily assures me ;)

[general_re]

I should add, of course, that as the pelvis got narrower, brains and heads got bigger, so the problem came about from both ends. Just as the pelvises of women were getting smaller, the heads of babies were getting bigger. And the end result that birth is much, much more painful and difficult in humans than in almost any other creature - those of you who have seen a pet or other animal give birth, and a woman give birth, have probably noticed that one seems much more difficult and painful than the other.

[gcruse]

Without implicitly acknowledging some supra-natural reality, not even "superstition" can be condemned; and truth is no better than lies.<P Attributing birth pain to a displeased ancient god accomplishes nothing positive. The lumping of 'sin' onto newly born girls is disgusting, destructive, and brings the believer into the company of the Taliban. Yet you celebrate it. Not me.

[Gumlegs]

It seems like the other proposals provided so far on this thread don't have a definitive answer as to why the birth canal has continued to be small compared to the baby's head.

Because there's another head before the baby's that prefers the canal to be smaller ... ?

[bzrd]

I agree, the imperfection of the creation is actually evidence FOR Biblical creationism, as it [the creation] was subject to the curse of Genesis 3.

Brian.

[Neenah]

Ayala is a former Dominican priest who left the clergy to study evolution and genetics

Nuff said.

[Born to Conserve]

Be kind to creationists. Every day there is one more nail in their coffin.

The sad thing is what they are doing to their children. The children's warped scientific knowledge will keep them from participating in science after their parents have taken the creation dogma to the grave.

"Children, two plus two is not four because it doesn't say so in the bible. Those mathematicians are wicked!"

Pathetic.

[PatrickHenry]

"Former priest becomes evolutionist" ping.