Posted on 03/29/2008 6:54:19 PM PDT by wastedpotential
Of all the factors that led to Mike Huckabee's demise in the 2008 presidential sweepstakes (insufficient funds, lack of foreign policy experience), there's one that has been largely overlooked: Huckabee's disbelief in the theory of evolution as it is generally understood – without the involvement of the Creator.
Perhaps you're thinking: What's evolution got to do with being president? Very little, as Huckabee was quick to remind reporters on the campaign trail. But from the moment the former Baptist minister revealed his beliefs on evolutionary biology, political commentators and scientists lambasted him. Some even suggested those beliefs should disqualify him from high office.
We believe most Americans
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"If the dendrites aren't there, what does it mean to say there were "existing unused paths"?"
"I hope not.
But I program computers as part of my work and as a hobby and thought I might ask you a question that could not easily be answered by a cut and past from another website.
You failed.
That is probably due to you misunderstanding odds. The odds that something will happen is not the same as the odds for something that has happened. The question is repeatability. What are the odds that starting with conditions at a chosen point prior to your birth, you will be reproduced again. If you start one hour prior to your conception I would hazard to guess the odds of being reproduced again are vanishingly small.
"This is where science is conducted (partial list), not internet chat rooms:"
" I tend to avoid philosophers and their output. They have been arguing about things for several millennia and have come up with little to show for it.
I particularly ignore their comments on science. Usually they amount to nothing more than, "But we were here first! Please pay some attention to us... Oh, please!"
While philosophers are babbling on, scientists are out there doing useful things."
He is desperately trying to show those who are watching, but not posting, in threads like these that it is still possible to be a conservative without hating modern science.
Or at least that is my take on it.
I like to pull the wings from small insects, but its too early in the season.
Or at least that is my take on it.
You win the toaster.
Most of the other scientists have already been banned or left in disgust. I guess I'm just the "token," eh?
A toaster?
Cool.
"What I would like to know is, what is a respectable scientist like Coyoteman doing on an internet chat room arguing with a bunch of useless philosophers?""I like to pull the wings from small insects, but its too early in the season."
That is known as a strawman. I certainly don't hate science, but I think Darwinism, including Neo-Darwinism does not adequately explain what it purports to explain. And just because we disagree with a Darwinists view of science does not make us haters of science.
Perhaps the philosophers should keep their noses out of real science?
They keep claiming, "We were here first. We invented science. Pay some attention to us while we contemplate our navels and figure out how to unscrew the inscrutable. Oh, please listen to us!"
Very few working scientists pay the least attention to philosophers, and for good reason.
Since you brought it up after saying evolution has nothing to do with origins, can you spell out just how that happened, from a scientific point of view.
Conditions....gee, that is a little vague. Can you be specific?
Dunno how that happened but it’s an example of another form of mutation: gene duplication. The duplicates ae strung end to end.
They, too, can be beneficial:
see: Examples of Beneficial Mutations and Natural Selection
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
No. Not my field. I studied evolution and bones and those kinds of things.
Which is exactly my point--once the ball is in the hole, the "odds against" it landing in that particular hole are irrelevant. And given that we're here, calculating the so-called odds against our being here are an empty exercise. I think I understand that much pretty well.
That was coyoteman's strawman. The odds of life forming based upon certain initial conditions is not an empty exercise.
Yes, he constructed something from our argument that he could attack. He changed disagreement to hate and from a specific discipline of science to science in general. That is called a strawman. You make something you can beat up.
Yep, had that happen to me a few times...
I just wasn’t sure whose straw-man you were referring to.
Thanks.
Then why would you make such a remark since you assert you know nothing about this. That does not seem very scientific. It seems assertive with admission of ignorance on the subject.
I have studied a few bones myself. Not just from a medical point of view, but from a paleontological point of view. Beyond homology and its component analogy, what can you say of ....say the mandible of Tremarctos (genus) with the canine, premolar, and carnasial tooth intact. It was found in a thanatocenose assemblage of Pleistocene fossils from MCFADDIN BEACH, Sea Rim State Park, TExas. I spent 4 years studying those fossils, along with Megalonyx, Smilodon, Bison, Mammut, Mammuthus columbia, Platygonus, Odocoelius, Tapirus excelcus, Tapirus copei, along with representative fishes, reptiles, no birds, and other mammals.
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.