In what species?
You only had to ask
Try Google: "ring species" salamander
Posted on 08/15/2006 10:11:10 PM PDT by jla
A-ha! Already did. I fail to see how a pro-GW-exists piece assumes that all opposing views are blocked.
You couldn't see any cherry-picking and manipulation of facts and data, in Gore's fakumentary? Or BS statements like: "All scientists now believe..." and "There is a consensus..." These terms are used when something has not been proven to mislead the masses. More than a few years ago, they probably said, "A consensus of scientists now believe the Sun orbits around earth." As if it's absolute fact and can not be questioned.
Things can be both a theory and a fact. Gravity is both a theory, law, and fact. There is germ theory and the fact of germs. There is atomic theory and the fact of atoms. There is evolutionary theory and there is the fact of evolution.
Perhaps, science classes should not only time teaching the results of scientific research, but also spend a significant amount of time teaching the philosophy of science. (In any case anyone's wondering and accuses me of plagiarism, that's from my account on YouTube)
It's based on faith but faith doesn't belong in the classroom, science does. Faith is not provable neither yours nor mine. Creation has no evidence, none. Men did not appear when God blew spittle at a dirt pile anymore than women grew out of a rib.
If I have denigrated people of faith here they deserved the slap in the face for forcing their faith onto those who would rather teach reality. If they are insulted that man isn't made from a pile of mud and that the Earth is older than 6000 years then they need to wake up and join reality and quit acting like the mullahs in Iran and forcing their atavistic nonsense on the rest of us.
Has there really been observed speciation? I think that would be even more significant than piltdown man (at least when it was thought not to be a hoax). I mean no disrespect by mentioning piltdown man. I only mean that, if it had been genuine, it would have solved a lot of problems. I would think that a genuine example of true speciation would pretty much shut a lot of non-evolutionists up. Why are these examples not being shouted from the housetops? I know of none.
Speciation has indeed been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Why not just type observed speciation into a search engine sometime. Thats close enough for shouting.
Primarily because actual speciation doesn't correspond to the Hollywood image. No special powers; not dramatic change in form; no fish to squirrel in one step.
The most dramatic examples of speciation being observed are ring species. There are examples of birds whose territories circle the globe. Each individual can mate with the individuals to its immediate East and West, but there is a distance, like the international date line, at which differentiation prevents interbreeding. Perhaps the non-mating individuals just don't approve of their cousin's tail-feather color; but whatever, they don't mate when they have the opportunity.
This is the way speciation actually works. Nothing dramatic or consistant with Hollywood. It's slow and boring. Nothing to shout from the rooftops.
Master's in Political Science. That's sorta science inn't it?
Her "feelings" tell her Evolution is wrong, and she doesn't want it, and noöne else should either.
You only had to ask
Try Google: "ring species" salamander
It is my understanding they prefer to be called "political activists"
Simple concepts made difficult by people who have far too much time on their hands.
Name one, punk.
Glasses wont help you. Your problem is what you are using to process the information.
It would be nice if they were that concise for once.
Biology. Ann spent a third of her new book making a fool of herself. Even high school kids are laughing at her ignorance of the biological sciences. (and it's not my kid, by the way).
Post 11 was pure ad-himinem.
You shouldn't use big words that you can't understand. Heck, you can't even spell it. An ad-hominem attack would have been if I was attacking taxesareforever on a personal level in post 11. I didn't. What I did do is make observations regarding the people that he was quoting. The ad-hominem attack was in taxesareforever's (and the usual cheerleaders) response to me.
Schlafly is a whiner. Her book "Safe, not Sorry" is a total "poor, poor me" whining rant about her not getting her way at a convention. It also contains a lot of man-hating feminism. I lost all respect for her after reading it.
Your support of the theory of evolution? (By the way, I don't think think evolution is really a liberal idea; heck, the plaintiffs in Kitzmiller v. Dover were conservatives, and the judge was a conservative recommended by Rick Santorum!)
You sort of ducked my question. You say you believe in some sort of god. Then you say that this is based on faith. Faith in what? What is it that leads you to place your faith in whatever God you believe in? It sounds like you are merely hedging your bets and covering the "god angle" just in case...Don't mean to come off as disrespectful or smug (sorry if that's how I'm sounding). It's just that your answers are very curious.
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.