Skip to comments.
Returning to Dover [evolution trial in Dover, PA: week 2]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^
| 03 October 2005
| TERESA MCMINN
Posted on 10/03/2005 6:22:51 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 581-582 next last
To: ml1954
341
posted on
10/03/2005 6:59:36 PM PDT
by
Heartlander
(Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
To: wallcrawlr
You latched onto the words of the post. You don't know how ironic your post was...
342
posted on
10/03/2005 6:59:41 PM PDT
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: Heartlander
343
posted on
10/03/2005 7:01:30 PM PDT
by
ml1954
To: Heartlander
Dawkins wrote that article.
344
posted on
10/03/2005 7:01:51 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: Junior
Rush always says..."Words mean things".
345
posted on
10/03/2005 7:03:27 PM PDT
by
wallcrawlr
(http://www.bionicear.com)
To: Heartlander
Sociobiology certainly isn't politically correct. Like many other tributaries of science, it has both the left and the right united as enemies. The specific claims of sociobiologists will stand or fall on their own merits. Wishful thinking will not refute them.
346
posted on
10/03/2005 7:18:50 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: wallcrawlr
Rush has a simplistic view of the world. It's the context of the words that "mean things." For example, the word "heart" can mean different things in different contexts.
347
posted on
10/03/2005 7:19:30 PM PDT
by
Junior
(From now on, I'll stick to science, and leave the hunting alien mutants to the experts!)
To: js1138
Four peptides are also out of the question.
348
posted on
10/03/2005 7:25:30 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Nathan Zachary
I'm sick and tired of posting it for you "evolutionists" who have obviously not read the theory you proffess to support.
And in the same post you mischaracterize evolution: The point made is that evolution theory says life created itself.
I'm thrilled that you assume that people that have dedicated their lives to the study of evolution know absolutely nothing compared to you. Aren't we just lucky to have you to tell everyone what the theory really is. Ever taken a college level biology class? Or even high school level? If so, you would know that the theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about "life creating itself". You'd think that those of us that have devoted a decent amount of time to studying it would have caught on to this by now, if it were true. But of course, you know more, so let's all bow down.
To: b_sharp
DNA and RNA are also just pattterns.
350
posted on
10/03/2005 7:27:43 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: AndrewC
Did you miss the peptides and the proteins? Just kind of raced right by them looking for something you could refute did you?
351
posted on
10/03/2005 7:28:07 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: js1138
Your pic didn't show up.
352
posted on
10/03/2005 7:29:24 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Heartlander
"How does one logically adhere to neo-darwinism yet separate oneself from sociobiology?"
Darwinism, i.e. TOE as modified by genetics, is Neo-Darwinism (I object to using his name, but it often is anyway). This "new synthesis" deals with the effect of genes and genetics on the physical properties of the organism.
Sociobiology as defined by E.O. Wilson extends genetics to the behavior of the organism, and by similarity, the effect of evolution on behavior. Some characteristics that are not physical clearly have a genetic piece to them (such as intelligence), but behavior in humans, especially, is so complicated that a solid link between Sociobiology and Evolution is difficult to establish. Your question is silly. Studying Evolution is for establishing relationships between organisms and the "origin of species". It has a strong genetic piece. Genetics and Behavior is another separate field. It's the same as studying Abiogenesis and Evolution. Clearly successful abiogenesis will lead to some overlap with evolution, but until abiogenesis is much better understood, they operate separately. So, until Sociobiology is better established it must operate spearately from evolution because the overlap bewteen them at the present is not clear. (rambles a bit, but I'm comfortable with it).
353
posted on
10/03/2005 7:30:07 PM PDT
by
furball4paws
(One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
To: b_sharp; AndrewC
Just kind of raced right by them looking for something you could refute did you?
Previous experience tells me not to expect much more out of him.
To: b_sharp
Must have exceeded the bandwidth of the account.
355
posted on
10/03/2005 7:32:19 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
To: b_sharp
Did you miss the peptides and the proteins? Nope, because I've seen that experiment years ago(jennyp posted it) and it is a farce as far as a potential life precursor.
Name the protein. That is all I ask. Then we can discuss what the experiment involving the named chemical "proves" or demonstrates. That is called discussion. But I find that you don't want to do that. All you seem to want to do is cite some thing and assert a definite answer to what the citation means.
356
posted on
10/03/2005 7:33:15 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: Vive ut Vivas
Anything important to say? Or are you just spouting off?
357
posted on
10/03/2005 7:35:40 PM PDT
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: js1138
"DNA and RNA are also just patterns. Really? You mean they are self-replicating patterns? Who'd a guessed.
358
posted on
10/03/2005 7:37:16 PM PDT
by
b_sharp
(Science adjusts theories to fit evidence, creationism distorts evidence to fit the Bible.)
To: Nathan Zachary
Every single anthropologist admits that there is no transitional record. I don't admit that. I think there are lots of transitional fossils in the record. Didn't I post one to you on a previous thread, with a nice color picture?
359
posted on
10/03/2005 7:40:03 PM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: Junior
For example, the word "heart" can mean different things in different contexts.
Typical liberal relativism.
360
posted on
10/03/2005 7:43:42 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 581-582 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson