Free Republic

Science has not successfully identified the mechanism of evolutionary change.

Micro-evolution is widely accepted, even among creationists. That is a "mechanism of evolutionary change."

It does explain.

The problem scientists create for themselves is they wish to see no purpose or plan in nature beyond random occurrence. The scientists reject God, therefore they reject anything that sounds like planned movement in nature. It all just has to be happening because atoms randomly bounced into one another.

I don't think you have to reject God to accept that the natural world operates according to very simple laws, and that this means "random" situations will befall different members of a species.

But we see that nature, at least here on Earth, has evolved in a direction toward greater complexity and awareness.

This is not true. Some species have evolved towards greater complexity and intelligence (awareness). But other species have not. Some species merely evolve to become more adept at handling their environment. For new species of bacteria, they aren't any more or less intelligent than the species they evolved from. They aren't evolving greater intelligence. So only a small fraction of evolution involves species becoming more intelligent.

And the fact that intelligence has evolved is not contrary to evolutionary theory in any way.

If evolution is merely leading to greater survival of the fittest, it could have stopped with sharks or with a shark that can defend against the few natural enemies a shark posseses. Instead, relatively fragile human beings are sitting around debating on the Internet - and still being eaten by sharks.

Fragile??? Man is the ultimate predator, at least as far as the Earth has seen (Predators are the ultimate predator, but they only exist in comic books and movies and video games). Man is an awesome predator. We've killed a member of pretty much every species on Earth (certainly almost every land animal; there may be some ocean species that have escaped our violence by living deep enough under the Earth). Individually, man might be weak compared to lions, tigers, and bears, but that doesn't matter to evolutionists. If we work as a group, then that's how we should be measured (biologists measure how things function in the real world, not how things would function in artificial settings). And if, as a group, we kill anything we want to kill, then we're the ultimate.

The music business isn't a charity

You could have fooled me. The studio execs sure act like it. </sarcasm>

The music studios have already lost a massive price-fixing lawsuit (I got my rebate... did you get yours?)

Do we really owe it to thieves not to steal from them?

Sounds like a BS story to bolster anti-US morale (the Saddam-in-a-filthy-hole story helped us, and the Saddam-checked-for-lice imagery was good, too).

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

If it's true, though, it's a terrible loss. Every American serviceperson lost is a massive tragedy.

I hope the Iraqis can build a future worthy of the sacrifices coalition forces (and patriotic Iraqis) have made.

Iditarod Sled Dog Race well Underway

Translation: no threads were posted at the start of the race :-(

There's something nifty about a bunch of guys and dogs trekking across the snow. Good luck & good health to all participating.

In other words, Discovery Institute creationist Meyer gives a paper to creationist editor Sternberg (who admits in his own blog that he, Sternberg, is associated with a YEC group, which fact was not generally known until the controversy), who short-cutted the editorial process in the in the last edition of the PBSW for which he would be editor, and did not choose an associate editor who might get in the way or choose unfriendly reviewers; of an article that was unsuitable for this specialized publication.

Bump for that. Creationists must be so proud to finally get something peer-reviewed, even under such murky circumstances lol.

if biologists could ever get around to actually coming up with an international standard of measurement to determine precisely and mathematically what, exactly, a species is

I'm not a biologist, but this is my understanding of it:

First off, species are groups of organisms (this is really basic, but I don't want to leave anything out).

For species that are not gendered: (like bacteria, and lots of other stuff)

Every asexually-reproducing organism with DNA distinct from another organism could theoretically be put in a different group. For bacteria, "species" seem to be categories of convenience. It has much more meaning for organisms that are male or female.

For species that contain male and female genders: (animals, maybe plants... like I said, I'm not a biologist)

If two fertile members of a species f---, the resulting offspring should be another fertile member of that species. Obviously, some animals are not fertile (birth defects, etc. can prevent a woman from bearing children or a man from producing proper sperm). But in general, Fertile Male + Fertile Female --> One or More Fertile Offspring of the Same Species.

This is why common dogs are considered to be a single species, even though there are many "pure" breeds (because two dogs can almost always produce a mutt, even if they are from different "breeds")

Likewise, horses and donkeys are considered different species, because the offspring of a horse and donkey is a mule, which is infertile. If mules could make mule babies, then horses and donkeys would be considered to be in the same species--in fact, instead of horses on one side and donkeys on the other, we would have a continuum between the two. Some animals would be 80% horse, 20% donkey, some would be 50/50, etc. They would not be considered separate species.

This is an objective test for whether or not two animals are in the same species (and hence an objective definition for what a species is). In fact, if Intelligent Design theorists are correct, and God designed all animals, then of course there would be such a thing as species. If animals cannot evolve between species, then God would have had to create all species. Species would be put here by God. So it makes no sense for an ID person to attack evolutionists on the grounds that species are not distinct! If species are not in fact distinct, that is not evidence for intelligent design! In fact, if you look at the Hebrew Bible, Jews are specifically commanded not to mix species. Mules are an abomination--even clothing made from multiple fibers is banned (cotton + rayon --> DEMONIC). So from a creationist viewpoint, attacking the idea that species follow solid boundaries, is absurd.

---

The idea behind speciation is that through evolution, one species (one group of animals capable of mating with each other) would break into two separate groups. Separated somehow, the two groups would evolve separately until they became unable to produce fertile children from f---ing each other. It doesn't always require separation, as far as I know, but that is the simplest way to get there. (but it does usually take many, many years to happen, so it's not something that can generally be observed in the lab under a normal time-frame)

Species can be more complex, though. For instance, there are a bunch of arctic birds that are considered to be within the same species, even though not all members of the species can mate and produce fertile offspring with all others. There are multiple sub-species, and while all subspecies are sexually compatible with at least one other sub-species, not all sub-species are compatible with all other sub-species. Classifying animals as belonging to a species can indeed be somewhat messy, but that is evidence for evolution, not evidence for design! If God designed everything and nothing evolved, species would be easy to tell apart and would be absolute!

If a species goes extinct, does that mean that the intelligent design was really not all that intelligent?

If intelligent design is true, and God really did create all of the species, shouldn't conservatives act to preserve every last one of them? I mean, every insignificant corpse-maggot or jungle-spider was put here on Earth BY GOD, LORD JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF, as an act of divine love & design & whatnot.

Me, I'm comfortable with a little extinction here and there.

I know which one I would pick, but I definitely see why you would compare the two... LOL

It seems to me with the advent of the internet, nobody needs specialized bookstores to get special titles.

You would have to provide some other value to the local Christian community in addition to selling books.

For instance, you could have a cafe (coffees, pastries, some tables, comfortable chairs, etc.) and make your bookshop a place for Christians to hang out and talk about the faith.

You could also host Christian-themed events at the bookshop...

But Churches already do a lot of that. I think it would be hard to carve out a niche for yourself. Books are cheaper online and Christians already have sources of Christian-specific social interaction.

I get the feeling people who run specialty religion bookstores generally do it because they want to advance their faith, not because they expect profits.

overthrowing the government (right or wrong) exemplifies “good, Republican values”.

Whoa there. I never made a normative value judgment on whether the gov't was good or bad. I was making a descriptive observation about the difference between "redistribution" and undoing a redistribution scheme.

The question of whether or not it is moral to rebel against a government of course rests on 1) whether the gov't is good or bad and 2) whether it can be changed by less violent means

Critics: 'Sweatshop-on-wheels amendment' Tuesday, March 8, 2005 Posted: 7:35 PM EST (0035 GMT) What's this? MyCashNow - $100 - $1,000 Overnight Payday Loan Cash goes in your account overnight. Very low fees. Fast decisions.... www.mycashnow.com Mortgage Rates Hit Record Lows Get $150,000 loan for $625 per month. Refinance while rates are low. www.lowermybills.com Compare Mortgage Offers Up to four free mortgage, refinance or home equity offers - one easy form. www.nextag.com LendingTree.com - Official Site Lendingtree - Find a mortgage, refinance, home equity or auto loan now. Receive... www.lendingtree.com YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS

????

However much money they give Churchill, they should lose ten times as much from their annual funding.

The only redistribution of wealth in Robin Hood was from the poor to the rich. Giving people their own tax money back is not redistributing anything, it's dedistributing.

Based on the facts

Based on the facts presented in this article. I'd like to hear CU's side. But, sadly, this article is probably correct.

I wish him good health.

Who wants to bet that the couple opened the cage to "pet" the chimps? We don't have all the facts yet on how the chimps got loose.

That's a very good point and I should have taken that into consideration. As I think about it, that is the most likely way they got out.

Still, this isn't a funny subject. The guy was begging for his life while he was being torn apart by wild animals. It's just not funny, even if it was his own fault.

Getting hit by a train--that's funny. There's a big splash, a solid noise, not much pain, and a giant mess. Being torn apart by wild animals--not so funny. Begging for your life while you're being torn apart--even less funny.

I didn't mean to ruin anyone's night, but I didn't want to let this go unchallenged. It's too horrible.

Good point. There was even a case when a criminal in jail attacked the priest who molested him years before (I think).

Getting a handle on child molestation/pedophilia is a major public mental health crisis in this country that spills over into other things (like causing crime).

I don't want to retire any later than I have to. I don't want to have to drag my butt to work at 70 years old! I think it should be optional. I want to enjoy my retirement and not be too old for it!

Fine. But if there are neato new medical technologies that can extend your life to 130, I sure as hell shouldn't have to pay for them.

"If you want to live forever, do it on your own dime." (Copyright XM 2004-2005)

If this is true, then the honeymoon is already over. The peace process is in its dying throes.

When it goes down this time, we can consider it dead forever.

Suggested Islamist Slogans:

Don't Let the
Enemy Vote!

No Women
No Problem!

Whores out of
Voting Booths!

A Woman's vote
Cancel's out
the vote of a
Righteous Man!

Hang Women,
Not Chads!