The four temperaments (Clockwise from top right; choleric; melancholic; sanguine; phlegmatic).
I think I've seen melancholic on several episodes of cops.
Posted on 08/07/2007 9:30:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
RIVERSIDE, Calif. – A research team, including UC Riverside biologists, has found experimental evidence that supports a controversial theory of genetic conflict in the reproduction of those animals that support their developing offspring through a placenta.
The conflict has been likened to a “battle of the sexes” or an “arms race” at the molecular level between mothers and fathers. At stake: the fetus’s growth rate and how much that costs the nutrient-supplying mother.
The new research supports the idea of a genetic “arms race” going on between a live-bearing mother and her offspring, assisted by the growth-promoting genes of the father...
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
I've never seen a "creationist" successfully refute a single thing, to say nothing of genetics/evolution, their apparent main target.
It appears to me that creationists fail so consistently because generally they have no idea of how to reason.
What I fail to understand at all is why there is any interest in pitching this game. We're not talking about some poltical movement here, we are only talking about men and women making a sincere effort to understand nature.
So, where's your beef?
==Did the new strains of Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis evolve, or were they newly created? They didn’t exist before, so I think it’s one or the other.
The best evidence suggests that they were pre-programmed to adapt to a changing environment. What we are seeing is directed, non-random mutation.
Please come up with a single shred of evidence to support this rather astonishing statement.
I rather think you have it backward since it is science that demonstrates genetics change and science that puts the lie to the Gaeaist nonsense about "global warming". It is "darwinists" as you call scientists, that are leading the charge AGAINST global warming hysteria.
Yeah, like they drummed Phrenologists out of Psychiatry, and Humorism out of modern medicine.
Don’t forgot the brutal treatment given to the poor alchemists who were just trying to pave the streets with gold.
How could I forget the poor alchemists, not to mention the Astrologers.
==I’ve never seen a “creationist” successfully refute a single thing, to say nothing of genetics/evolution
“Avoid Debates. If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to ‘defend evolution,’ please decline....Have you ever watched the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Federals? The Federals get off some good shots, but who remembers them? The purpose of the game is to see the Globetrotters beat the other team.
And you probably will get beaten.”
Scott, Eugenie C., “Monkey Business,” The Sciences (January/February 1996), pp. 20-25. Scott is Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, Berkeley, California, and received his Ph.D. in Anthropology, Missouri University, 1974. Past previous position, Assistant Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder, 1984-86.
==What I fail to understand at all is why there is any interest in pitching this game. We’re not talking about some poltical movement here, we are only talking about men and women making a sincere effort to understand nature...So, where’s your beef?
Don’t you get it? The Church of Darwin is a rival religion that seeks to overturn our Judeo-Christian heritage:
“Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.”
Provine William B., [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “Darwin Day” website, University of Tennessee Knoxville, 1998.
“Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”
Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.
“It is no more heretical to say the Universe displays purpose, as Hoyle has done, than to say that it is pointless, as Steven Weinberg has done. Both statements are metaphysical and outside science. Yet it seems that scientists are permitted by their own colleagues to say metaphysical things about lack of purpose and not the reverse. This suggests to me that science, in allowing this metaphysical notion, sees itself as religion and presumably as an atheistic religion (if you can have such a thing).”
Shallis, Michael [Astrophysicist, Oxford University], “In the eye of a storm”, New Scientist, January 19, 1984, pp.42-43.
“Man is the result of a purposeless and materialistic process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned. He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal, and a species of the Order Primates, akin nearly or remotely to all of life and indeed to all that is material.”
Simpson, George Gaylord [late Professor of Vertebrate Paleontology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, USA], “The Meaning of Evolution: A Study of the History of Life and of its Significance for Man,” [1949], Yale University Press: New Haven CT, 1960, reprint, p.344.
“I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.”
Aldous Huxley: Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.
Sorry, I have long since ceased to value philosophers' opinions, particularly when it comes to science.
This one seems no different. His rebuttal to the evidence for the theory of evolution is to link "evolutionism" to "a nonscientific value system based on the idea of progress."
What a crock! I'm sure serious scientists everywhere are quaking in their boots over that winner!
Show this "best evidence" and whomever or whatever "pre-programmed" XDRTB.
(crickets)
The four temperaments (Clockwise from top right; choleric; melancholic; sanguine; phlegmatic).
I think I've seen melancholic on several episodes of cops.
==Please come up with a single shred of evidence to support this rather astonishing statement.
A cursory search produced the following results:
Global Warming & Evolution: Skepticism & Genuine Science
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238739.htm
Global Warming Is Spurring Evolution, Study Says
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/06/060608-global-warming.html
Warming to evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060701_warming
All you have demonstrated is that scientists have opinions on things they know nothing whatsoever about, just like other people do. Witness the “scientists” that sign petitions stating that 1000000 “scientists” have agreed on something. This is not science, it is BS. It is a form of religion.
When anyone waxes large on the subject of metaphysics or religion, one thing you can ge sure of is that you are being treated to a line of BS. I don’t care if the BS is coming from a “Darwinist” a “Christian” a “scientist” or a clown.
BS is an irreducable part of the human condition and human discourse, and it is one best identified early on. It is part of separating the wheat from the chaff.
==Show this “best evidence” and whomever or whatever “pre-programmed” XDRTB.
Each organism was preprogrammed to survive. Now if your asking why there is death and disease in the world, read the Bible.
==Why can’t evolution be the result of “intelligent design”?
It could, but the evidence is against it.
That’s not evidence. So what is some evolutionists support global warming? Your statement was that there is a link between the two.
Show this “best evidence” and whomever or whatever “pre-programmed” XDRTB
I took your question to mean why would an intelligent designer allow drug resistant tuberculosis. If you are looking for evidence of non-random, directed mutation...there’s plenty.
He made a claim regarding science, and when asked to back it up he resorted to "read the bible."
That's apologetics.
I used to raise guppies.
I studied them closely and 86% of them were right-finned.
They did not know it though.
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.