Posted on 06/15/2005 9:41:56 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
No I am using correct scientific terms, you would I presume describe nucelar fission as, something or other about atoms or something yes? it's a complete mischaracterisation of this situation to use the term natural selection, it is the presice reason people can beleive that without any outisde influences a lake of ooze and a few bajillion years = myriad complex species; because people refuse to take the time to look at what the theory states and what the terms mean, it is also for this reason that most people hold some beleif that cells know what adaptation they'd like and thus create the appropriate limb or mechanism out of the ether. The organism is completely ignorant of the process, that is precisely why it is reffered to as NATURAL selection, not 'The war against corn, which tenaciously fougt extinction'. Without first grasping the terms, specifically, and not randomly applying incorrect terms in the wrong situation you cannot discuss evolution, and specifically plant evolution, in any sort of intellectual manor, when your entire premise is based on the flase use of terms you both confuse those who know what those terms mean, and make your argument completly incompatible with anyone who knows a thing about evolution. You before alluded to my 'knee jerk' reaction, however I think it has become clear that you possess a knee jerk reaction toward labeling any form of selective breeding as natural selection. You almost certainly would characterize the Nazis in WWII as being an agent of Natural Selection, which again would be patently incorrect. You have an employed a common evolutionist tactic; bandy about scientific terms, the definition of which you have no idea what is, and make blanket assertion based on an assemblage of incoherent junk science which only seems comprehensible when you insert made of definitions in place of actual scientific terms.
Evolution, the theory, refers specifically to the best suited organism surviving and the least suited being purged, thus the preffered vector is MORE SUITED, thus when the LESS SUITED is maintained and the MORE SUITED is purged that is NOT EVOLUTION.
I always thought that the wolf/dog thing was started by someone not unlike myself.
Wandering around looking for corn, she found a den of baby wolves and said "oh look, how cute!" and then she took one home with her.
No you're not. You think you are because you've gotten all your science from creationist sources, and they play fast and loose with science.
What an amaizeing fact !
The important thing in that situation though, domestication, is whether the breeds naturally purged traits which were harmfal to their human freinds or whether humans took on a penchant for shooting or knifing any that stepped out of line, thus selectively keeping only the less agressive, easier to control pups in line. The point of this is actually far from inconsequential. It makes all the difference because if we recognize the role humans have played in the evolution of species to date, we can then understand both the improbability that complex changed occured haphazard and without intervention, and then understand that unless some new evidence is found, including a slew of fossils, there's just no way one can assume that the level of complexity realized on earth came from a single organism which grew into species on it's own; instead it is altogether far more likely that something sentient affected that process; be it a grand creator, or aliens, or whatever you like is up for debate. Still given that mutations alone result in de-complexity rather than complexity, and given that the most signifigant 'evolutions' have been made in whole or in part by man, given the unlikelyhood that an organism would survive with useless parts which were gaining complexity, such as the eye ball, hanging off them and doing nothing for millions of years,and the lack of fossils to demonstrate as much, it's rather far fetched and completly unscientific to presume such changes occured on their own. There is no case where an eyeball-less organism has sponaneously sprouted one due to a mutation, and precious little to suggest it's even possible. We have happy little pet doggies because humans have invested a great deal of time in breeding non-agressive pet dogs, and shooting uncontrollable ones, not because they naturally changed into two species, one wild, and one domestic.
Yes Webster's dictionary and biolgycom are towers of creationist rhetoric. The fact is in an effort to convince yourself of the fact you are intelligent you have refused to look up the definition for big words you like to bandy about, thus when speaking with anyone who takes due care in affirming the correct use of the word, you make random and incorrect assertions based on you're flimsy vocabulary.
Excellent. I'll find a place for that, somewhere, in The List-O-Links.
> best suited organism surviving and the least suited being purged
Yup. And in the hypothetical given, being a stupid lama (apparently, a Tibetan monk too dumb to put his robe on properly, one imagines) was a survival *plus.* Whatever was goign aroudn wiping out lamas was preferentially sparing the dumbest ones. Thus, being stupid made one MORE SUITED to survive the environment.
In the hypotehtical I was refering to them all purposly being targeted [ IE by humans], you would do well to read the Websters on devolution:
One entry found for devolution.
Main Entry: de·vo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "de-v&-'lü-sh&n also "dE-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin devolution-, devolutio, from Latin devolvere
1 : transference (as of rights, powers, property, or responsibility) to another; especially : the surrender of powers to local authorities by a central government
2 : retrograde evolution : DEGENERATION
- de·vo·lu·tion·ary /-sh&-"ner-E/ adjective
- de·vo·lu·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
LOL! I see you were careful to choose the words "creature" and "affect" in an attempt to keep your atheist materialist loop closed tight.
But you failed. You just gave away the farm. You just surrendered to the the central contention of ID theory. LOL!
Truth is, there's a WHOLE LOT of ID goin' on. Indeed, mankind does little else. Remove intentional, purpose-driven, goal-directed alteration of species and environment from this emerald orb over the past 1,000 centuries and you have an entirely different world and biomass.
Now ID is being done at the cellular level. E. coli have been genetically engineered to produce human insulin. There is nothing mindless or aimless about that.
Yup. Just like gravity is a theory.
Not really. People can and do question the theory of gravity all the time without being stoned for heresy.
Perhaps you are confusing the theory of gravity with the observed behavior of gravity.
You will note the theory of gravity is demonstrable through the behavior of object when dropped, we've yet to have a demonstration of ooze turning into monkeys, in fact we've at best gotten really specifc ooze into something kinda like RNA, in a controlled environment when we were TRYING to generate DNA, yet the theory of evolution postulates that ooze completely on it's own spontaneously became DNA. No one with any scientific ability can make such a leap, the most obvious answer given all data is that something extraordinary (which is by definition a non-ordinary occurance, and thus largely unpredictable since science assumes that what occurs today follows the same rules as yesterday, by definition that is NOT occuring here) occured to take the ooze and make DNA.
> People can and do question the theory of gravity all the time without being stoned for heresy.
And who has been "stoned for heresy" for questioning evolution?
But merely posting anti-evolution rants while appearing to be stoned doesn't count.
AFAIK there is no connection between Microbiology and Gregor Mendel. Perhaps you should look up Microbiology in the dictionary.
> posting anti-evolution rants while appearing to be stoned
Hmm. Why did I have a sudden flashback to "f-Christian?"
Well, the alternative to that is also famine. You want to tell third world farmers they have to continue growing low-yield local crop varieties (and consequently living in mud huts) just so you can celebrate diversity?
Why must it be one or the other? Why not some of both? I think the first world and third world farmers should all benefit from modern agriculture, backed up by the insurance of alternate genetic material. I'll bet the Irish would have "celebrated diversity" in their diet during the 1840's. The hi-yield "green revolution" requires great amounts of fuel, fertilizer and capital, something that may become increasingly scarce in the third world.
Besides, thousand upon thousands of those varieties are kept alive on research farms and in genebanks just so they can be mined for valuable genetic traits by the minions of soulless "mechanized monoculture". And that's exactly where they should be -- where those traits can be integrated into high-yield, high-intensity-agriculture-friendly crop strains -- not in fields that families have to make a living off of.
I have read disturbing articles that some of the seed banks are underfunded and have allowed their stores of practically extinct species to age beyond the point of being able to germinate.
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
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.