Posted on 04/07/2006 4:16:49 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Even as the evolution wars rage, on school boards and in courtrooms, biologists continue to accumulate empirical data supporting Darwinian theory. Two extraordinary discoveries announced this week should go a long way to providing even more of the evidence that critics of evolution say is lacking.
One study produced what biblical literalists have been demanding ever since Darwin -- the iconic "missing links." If species evolve, they ask, with one segueing into another, where are the transition fossils, those man-ape or reptile-mammal creatures that evolution posits?
In yesterday's issue of Nature, paleontologists unveiled an answer: well-preserved fossils of a previously unknown fish that was on its way to evolving into a four-limbed land-dweller. It had a jaw, fins and scales like a fish, but a skull, neck, ribs and pectoral fin like the earliest limbed animals, called tetrapods.
[big snip]
Another discovery addresses something Darwin himself recognized could doom his theory: the existence of a complex organ that couldn't have "formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications," he wrote in 1859.
The intelligent-design movement, which challenges teaching evolution, makes this the centerpiece of its attack. It insists that components of complex structures, such as the eye, are useless on their own and so couldn't have evolved independently, an idea called irreducible complexity.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Being in a backroom does reflect the usual Conservative attitude to science. It's neither unexpected nor uncommon. Except for a few scientists on FR, most would expect this type of treatment of scientific topics from a Republican web site.
Have noticed in my dreams that all the "players" in my dreams are "actors"(metaphors of something else) but still there is an "observer" an observer watching it all..
That is the "people" in my dreams are players(even what I see as myself) but there is an "observer" taking note of it all.. In a dream that I can see myself in, "the myself" is a player.. still the observer is extant(watching)... Everytime I try to make the observer participate, I wake up.. Took some practice to do that but I did.. End result I woke up.. Wonder if "an angel"(some spiritual entity) creates dreams for us..
Wonder if anybody else has had this experience.. I wonder if the "observer" is my spirit, but the player playing me is my donkey?.. Would make sense since why would my spirit need sleep.. my Donk does need sleep but my spirit would not.. Could be that what dreams ARE... is something to keep the spirit busy whilt the DonK sleeps.. ya think?..
I thought we were clarifying a few particulars. I guess that might appear to be arguing. It seems that we were talking past each other to some considerable extent, just as you observe.
I would limit the correlation to those who believe Adam was the first mortal man and those who disapprove of evolution --- not conservatists in general and science in general.
Also, the backroom fate for a science thread no doubt correlates to spamming of the abuse reports. And there is no evidence who or what ideology hits the abuse button more often - IOW, thin-skinness.
Since it is a topic not particularly difficult, why don't you quit playing games, and simply lay out both scenarios.
Oop! Never mind. Here come A-G and Doc galloping to the rescue. Thanks A-G! Thanks Doc!
One difference though is that I rarely see my own body (or donkey as you call it) but frequently see other's and other spirits as well.
So do you have a theory, other than "it's magic"?
LOLOL! Thank you for the encouragement, dear YHAOS!
I'm not playing games, I want to know what question is being asked before I answer it.
Is that too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
Too late, Prof, you had your chance. Now two other people, who weren't steamrollered by the overwhelming obstacles you seemly perceive, have answered boop's question. Better luck next time.
I have to go now. Bye.
I'm devastated.
Now two other people, who weren't steamrollered by the overwhelming obstacles you seemly perceive, have answered boop's question
Doctor Stochastic answered it. I didn't see any other answers.
I have to go now. Bye.
Maybe if you think really hard, you'll come up with something to say when you return. It would be a nice change.
You coulda been a contender.
The really "big" picture! The thought occurred to me that your observation goes straight to Liebniz's two great questions: Why is there something, why not nothing? And why are things the way they are, and not some other way?
It seems to me neither question can be answered on a theoretical basis that gives a major role to "randomness" (or "boundarylessness") in nature. Whatever "randomness" is. I'm beginning to think in many cases maybe it's just the stuff we humans can't otherwise account for. We are "conditioned," it seems, or "naturally selected," whatever, to be strongly visually oriented. And this basically means that the stuff we "see" is only that which lies in the 4D spacetime band, which classical Newtonian physics so ably describes.
In my reading lately I came upon a term to describe this 4D spacetime band: the "mesocosmos," closely correlated with Newtonian physics. In this model relativity theory deals with the "macrocosmos"; QM with the "microcosmos." All constitute the reality that we human beings experience and observe, all the details of which are not consciously experienced by us.
Jeepers, I hope I can find that source!
Anyhoot, there has to be a "beginning." So that part, at least, isn't "random." And if there's a beginning, we cannot dispense with the possibility that the beginning was made to achieve a purpose. And so we can begin to speak of "progress." Whatever that means to the person using that word.
Just a little wool-gathering there, dear Alamo-Girl! Thank you for your splendid and most valuable post!
Hello Doc! Thank you ever so much for providing an example of a closed system.
I'm sure it's true that a person lacking intensive scientific studies tends not to develop the intuitive "feel" for things scientific that a working scientist has. This goes without saying. Still it seems that science does not hold the monopoly on intuition.
Mine seemed to be not too off-base on the point in question: that there are no "closed systems" in nature. But then Alamo-Girl wrote to say that the entire Universe is itself a "closed system." And I'm thinking that is quite likely true at the ultimate or principal level. But you can't test that proposition in a laboratory!
Personally, I enjoy mulling over stuff like this. :^)
So please just forgive me for not being a scientist! :^) Given the way my fevered little brain works, philosophy is more "natural" for me. It is my bailywick, the little vineyard I tend for my Lord.
It's good to see you, Doc! Thank you so much for writing.
Like "infinity" and "null", the term "random" is used carelessly to describe physical reality. Such mathematical terms do not translate to physics without caveats.
"The smallest particle of light that is known so far is called a photon. Photons are part of an electron.
grey_whiskers comment: !!
Sorry, you asked for it:"
I really don't know what you mean by "Grey whiskers comment".
My supposition is the the comment Sounds as if it is true but in no way is it true.
If my supposition is true then allow me to explain.
When the electrons in a molecule are energized they don't give off or release Photons.
When the electrons in a molecule are de-energized they give off light(photons) and heat.
Therefore, one of the particles contained in electrons are photons.
Check it out. If I am wrong I will de-energize some electrons by building a fire.
" I'm just not sure either one of us was relating to what the other was saying despite the similarities of our points. So, maybe I am the one who owes the apology."
There have some months since I was posted here. I have not been following all that has been stated and therefore have not been aware of intellectual territory staked out and settled.
There could be no arguement without me doing my part.
It is my pleasure to meet a scholar and a gentleman.
it is also my distinct honor and a priviledge to read from and speak to betty boop and Alamo-Girl.
May the Life in me live In you all also.
I really don't have a great deal of time for this. I do however like Discourse.
When we have made our comments back and forth, I have probably taken my side a little more seriously than I ought.
The day your Doctor asks you, "Are you afraid to die?" may cause you to be a little bit more serious about showing you recognize, on Earth, the One you will meet in a shorter time span than you thought.
Since I know this to be true in my life, it may hold true in the life of others. In that case, start dealing with Him in the way the song goes.
"Live like you were Dieing."
I am not being maudlin. These are just the facts, ma'am.
Have a good day. Gold is at 639/oz.
That probably means some people are looking at a war around Iran and Israel.
I don't like war, but I hope our country is on God's side.
Be Prepared, to answer the question.
I am glad you freepers are awake!!
Here I go stepping off into the deep end.
Seems to me that a Closed System is one where the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is in effect.
Therefore, an Open system would not require the Conservation of Mass and Energy.
An Open system would allow for one to gain more energy from a system than was put into the system.
OK, I'll step back out of the line of fire to see who shots that down.
Coming up ...
700
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.