Science Icon Fires Broadside At Creationists

London Times vis The Statesman (India) ^ | 04 July 2004 | Times of London Editorial

[MacDorcha]

actually, i just popped back in after a day or two off. so no, i dont have a full grasp of everything said.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"offspring" that will one day be parallel to the original.

What does "parallel" have to do with anything here?

Note that the Ancestral Rockies did not necessarily give rise to the current Rockies though.

[MacDorcha]

for something to be living, it must consume, reproduce (to make a larger population), and grow (in simplest terms)

if the mountains are alive, they will grow after they are produced, not shrink, like the Appalachians have. "parallel" means that the offsrping will grow in number AND equal in size the original.

[AndrewC]

I foresee, in response to this post, that instead of explaining why PatrickHenry's post was gibberish, you will ask me something like why I do not think it is gibberish.

It is gibberish because "DNA is a normally double stranded macromolecule. Two polynucleotide chains, held together by weak thermodynamic forces, form a DNA molecule."

And the function of DNA is to act as a repository of information. This function does not change with a change in the arrangement of DNA.

The arrangement of DNA is normally a double helix with a further arrangement which is modified during cell reproduction.(simplistic description only to point out that the arrangement changes but the function of DNA remains the same.)

Now what was probably meant would look something like-->When a biologist uses the word information in discussions about DNA, he's talking about the arrangement of the bases on the backbone, which along with the decoding element determines what the information ultimately describes.

[AndrewC]

But Microsoft software is dead meat.

With bugs.

[Aquinasfan]

They do, which is tangential to the subject of whether Nazi genocide was good for the species.

Define "the good for the species." Who survived, the Jews or Hitler? Which group is more "fit"?

[tallhappy]

I did explain why it is gibberish: What "molecules" and what "arrangement" are you talking about? .

he then goes on to explain, sometimes in excruciating detail, why this is so.

I addressed this as well: I do know what you are trying, and fail utterly, to say. Yet you are more mistaken than correct in your point.

[Doctor Stochastic]

..grow after they are produced, not shrink,...

The Himalayas are growing; they are young. The Appalachians are old; they are eroding. There's a whole cycle here.

I'm not claiming that I would use "life" to describe mountains; only that most proposed definitions of life are either too broad or too narrow.

[VadeRetro]

You do not know the difference between addressing a point and restating it. This a very basic "Where to begin?" educational deficiency.

[edsheppa]

I don't understand.

That's because I wasn't being clear. Is the matter/energy directly feeding the metabolism significantly less complex? Take the case of your parasite, say an intestinal parasite. Although it lives within a complex host, it feeds on matter of a very simple nature. In fact the host is optional - place the parasite in a broth of shredded proteins and other nutrients and it would do as well. And similarly would its host if the broth were directly delivered to the gut.

[tallhappy]

I don't consider your point of view completely irrelevant, but it isn't much of an argument.

I wasn't really making an argument.

It's simply a fact that studying for a biology degree or biochemistry degree or related today, Ernst Mayr's name just wouldn't come up much if at all.

The insults spewed forth at dmcnash bu more than one person were not only overly rude but inappropriate based on substantive considerations.

[tallhappy]

You do not know the difference between addressing a point and restating it.

OK. What point did I restate rather than address.

Going back to an earlier comment, there is not need to guess what I am saying. It is clear. based on PH's statement:

when a biologist uses it in discussions about DNA, he's talking about the arrangement of the molecules, which determines their function.

what is the "arrangement" referred to, what are the "molecules" being referred to and what is the "function" being referred to.

Answer these basic clear questions and a lot will be elucidated.

[Dimensio]

Under evolutionary theory, every form of life that exists today exists because it has survived the battle for survival. Under evolutionary theory, the creatures or species that survive the battle for survival are superior to those that do not.

Wrong. The creatures that survive are simply the creatures that are best adapted for an environment. Had the enfironment been different, a different species might have survived and the current "superior" species might have died out.

Superiority only goes as far as the environmental factors. It's all relative.

Therefore, those humans who survive the battle for survival are superior to those who do not.

"Superior" only in that they survived, which is a tautology.

Therefore, those who practice genocide are superior to those who are victims of it.

Not if those who practice genocide find themselves getting executed for their crimes. And again, this only defines superiorty through those who survive. Genetics doesn't even play into it, you just kill a group of people and call yourself "superior" simply because you didn't end up dead. That's not evolution, that's just mass-murder.

The logic wasn't lost on Hitler.

I don't see how any logic could have been lost, since there wasn't any logic in it to begin with.

[Dimensio]

Define "the good for the species."

That which allows the species to continue surviving.

Who survived, the Jews or Hitler?

Jews are still around. Hitler isn't and hasn't been for some time. Let me think about this for a moment.

Which group is more "fit"?

Invalid comparison of a group to an individual. Groups tend to last longer than individuals. Groups can sustain themselves by having the members reproduce. Individals don't do that.

[longshadow]

wildly elliptical placemarker (back by popular demand)

[Dimensio]

so it was darwinism, not racism that caused genocide? hmmmm....

It was racism that caused genocide. Darwin's theory of evolution does not support genocide.

[whattajoke]

It's simply a fact that studying for a biology degree or biochemistry degree or related today, Ernst Mayr's name just wouldn't come up much if at all.

One wonders where you got your biology education. I recall his name and work quite vividly from my BS in Biology a scant 10 years ago. His work and name poppped up yet again while working on my Masters.

[MacDorcha]

This then leads us once again into the realm of the "abstract"

we know what it is, even without knowing what it is. why/how?

[tallhappy]

I recall his name and work quite vividly from my BS in Biology

What classes was he discussed? How many lectures were devoted to his work in those classes. What is his main finding that is taught?

This isn't a challenge.

[MacDorcha]

but genocide can cite darwin as an acceptable support. the s felt they were the "strong", so they were to kill the "weak" so they could have a "more pure" environment.

pack animals kill the young of rival males to ensure it is only their that continues. this is the reasoning the 's made. they viewed their race as supperior, thus being racists... but they used "survival of the fittest" to reason it, thus making them darwinesque. (note, not totally darwin, but they used elements of it in teachings and what not to convey their point of view.)