The Evolving Peppered Moth Gains a Furry Counterpart

NY Times ^ | 6-17-03 | CAROL KAESUK YOON

[Aric2000]

You're too good....

Sorry, was just sitting here laughing about the picture in my mind of a gay King thinking that his Bishop was more important then his queen, and just had to write it down.

My mind goes in strange directions when I am tired....;)

[bondserv]

Clearly the most significant thing to understand is whether the beige colored mouse has the genetic information in its DNA to turn on the lava color in order to confuse evolutionists. Another good question that is overlooked by the author is whether the lava mouse is ever found living in the sand and vice versa.

But then that would make people actually think.

If both mice contain the genetic information to be lava or beige it could have happened to a pair of mice's offspring after getting off the Ark in the second generation (a couple of months after leaving the Ark).

The next good question would be what triggers the color variation, environment, temperature, diet (mineral consumption), the dirt they dig in, amount of sunlight (like tanning).

Posing these questions would have given the article a Design perspective, and we will have none of that.

That is why I contend we need more Creationists posing their theses in peer review journals. Scientific minded Creationists need to go back to school and attain a different set of credentials. A PhD. in theology makes it tuff to get ones articles printed in Journals.

There is currently a college and career recruiting conspiracy among Creationists at church meetings across the country to begin applying "truth pressure" on the flailing scientific community.

[Aric2000]

There is NOTHING flailing about the scientific community.

Flailing in the creationist community, YES, misquotes, questionable science, and I use that word LIGHTLY, because it VERY questionable, outright lies, etc.

Yeah, you can get ALL the doctorates that you need, but expect at least 75% of them to go with evolution, once they understand the truth and quit getting bombarded with propaganda from the creationist camp. The other 25% will be questioning, and then where will you be?

All those doctorates that you tried to get for the creationist camp will have decamped and moved to the other side and the rest will become unreliable.

Religion is religion, science is science, once you finally figure that out, the better off we will all be.

Young Earth, WRONG, the earth is over 4 billion years old, the universe, closer to 15 billion.

A worldwide flood catastrophy, WRONG, there is NO evidence that a worldwide flood of ANY nature occurred, let alone one that was a mile deep.

No transitionals, WRONG, there are thousands, you creationists just keep moving the goalposts.

Go for it, I would love to see more creationists go out and get an education, then we would no longer have to argue with them, because they would no longer be creationists.

[bondserv]

Fear not the Creationists perspective. Please reread the article before you say there is no slant to the scientific community.

Your venerated scientists often have agendas, or they aren't objective enough to think through all of the angles on any given discovery (especially from a design perspective).

[bondserv]

P.S. If you never want the answers to the tough questions, and wish to railroad those who are willing to ask them, can you claim there is an intellectually honest attempt to ascertain the truth?

[Aric2000]

I am going to tell you this one more time.

There is NO evidence of a designer, gentics has shown that indeed, the genes themselves seem to show natural selection, the accidental arrangements, the changing of genomes over time, using MANY different ways to get to the same function. If it had been "designed" it would have been the KISS principle, using the same genes to tackle the problems.

This is NOT the case, many different genes have been switched on and off in order to solve the same evolutionary problems, and have come to the same conclusion. This shows in a VERY efficient and hard to argue manner that it is natural selection and evolution that have caused this and NOT design.

Design is NOT scientific, UNLESS there is evidence for a designer, and the more answers we get, the less likely that indeed a designer had anything to do with it.

Evolution is the main theory that has allowed biology, genetics etc to move from the ideas of the mind into the laboratory.

Evolution is not the theory that is in trouble, Creationism, which is NOT a scientific theory, but religious Dogma is in trouble, as is ID, which again, is a HYPOTHESIS based upon religious Dogma.

They have decided that there is a designer and are doing their best to find creatures that will show their underlying assumptions.

Evolution continues to be checked and rechecked and rechecked again, it passes all tests, it has YET to be falsified, and scientists are giving it their best shot, on a SCIENTIFIC basis, whomever can replace evolution as the basic theory for biology and genetics will be famous FOREVER.

Evolution is NOT a conspiracy, it is just good science.

Evolution is about as objective as it comes.

[Aric2000]

Well, when you base your thesis on an unscientific assumption, expect to get railroaded.

There is NO scientific foundation for ID, NOR for creationism, and any scientist that claims there is, is NOT a scientist, but masquerading as one.

Come up with ONE scientifically verifiable assumption, come up with one scientifically verifiable idea. Come up with an idea that can be tested.

Evolution says that fossils will be in a certain order within strata, come up with a fossil that is out of order, and evolution will be falsified. Get digging.

Find a gene that has "made by god" on the label and you will have disproven evolution. better get checking that DNA.

Find a cow that has given birth to a pig, then you will have disproven evolution. Get out to those farms, there must be one somewhere.

There are THOUSANDS of ways to disprove evolution.

You'd better get to work.

ID makes NO predictions, it has no scientific basis, it is religious DOGMA, it's underlying assumption is RELIGIOUS, and RELIGION is NOT SCIENCE....

[ALS]

"Evolution is about as objective as it comes."

[Aric2000]

Here's very nice essay on science and the scientific method.

Please read it, and then maybe you will understand what science actually is and why it can be NOTHING BUT OBJECTIVE.

http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html

Using scientific metodology, YOU CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT OBJECTIVE.... Because the evidence will lead you to an OBVIOUS conclusion.

Notice the evidence comes BEFORE the conclusion, that is the way science works, then from there we can make educated hypothesis about what else we should find if our theory is indeed true.

Therefore we can make predictions with it etc.

Please read the above essay, and you will see why ID is NOT scientific, it starts with a conclusion, and then tries to find evidence to fit that assumption, just as creationists do. And then of course ignoring evidence that will disprove their initial assumption.

If a scientific theory makes a prediction, and it proves to be false, the theory is either modified, or tossed out for a better theory.

This is OBJECTIVE by any definition of the term.

Again, Evolution is as objective as you can get.

[ALS]

"Again, Evolution is as objective as you can get."

[bondserv]

Wow, you are saying that evolution is purely fact, and that human being don't take those facts and extrapolate their ideas of how those facts tie together.

I am sorry to disagree with your assessment of the theory, but I must say evolution has not been proven in a scientific sense. Anytime a person guesses they are clearly leaving the realm of scientific method.

Educated hypothesis set up the tests that prove out a theory, but because a person has made an educated hypothesis does in no way verify that they are adhering to the scientific method. In fact if they cannot do reliable tests to prove out their entire hypothesis, they can in no way say that they are adhering to the scientific method.

Evolutionary theory is a step in the scientific method that has for the last 150 years fallen short of proving anything. Guess to your hearts content, but until you have the tools and methods to prove out your theory don't call it scientific.

The moon is a piece of cheese hanging in the sky. The evidence I have is:

1. Coloration is the same as my cheese.
2. It has holes that look like my swiss cheese. (Just look at it).
3. Cheese is round.
4. It makes me hungry when I look at it.

The moon is cheese, and I am a reputable scientist because I used the scientific method.

[ALS]

hehehe

OUCH!

[bondserv]

Now lets teach the children in school that the moon is cheese.

Shut up and sit down.

You are fools, there is no other way to look at the scientific evidence.

Stop disagreeing we have used science, you cannot diasagree, we are the real scientists.

Bwhahahahaha

How is my cheese?

[bondserv]

I predict my cheese will raise in the night sky tomorrow.

See there it is, right again, when will you learn, just as I predicted.

Cheese for everyone, on me.

[Aric2000]

Then we go to the moon, and it turns out the moon is indeed NOT cheese. So your hypothesis, "the moon is made out of cheese" is NOT true, therefore it has been proven false.

Time to find a new theory to look at the new evidence.

You are indeed clueless about evolution and the scientific method.

Sad, but unsurprising, and your cheerleading section there is just as clueless.

Again, it's sad, but unsurprising.

Well, I have better things to do today then debate clueless creationists. Have a good day.

You can take the horse to water, but you cannot make him drink.

I give you evidence and definitions, and you CHOOSE to ignore them because your worldview will not allow you too.

Again, sad, but unsurprising.

[ALS]

"Evolution is about as objective as it comes"

[bondserv]

If you choose to support cheezy science that is your choice.

But I will continue to salt your oats to see if you will have a thirst to drink from the living water.

I do acknowledge that many scientists adhere to the scientific method, but all of them put a big question mark behind everything that is related to evolution, because they realize it is still in a very infantile state, and they are not yet willing to stake their reputations on an unproven hypothesis.

[cookcounty]

"IT IS VERY IMPORTANT, it shows exactly what natural selection would do, because if it was DESIGNED, then most likely you would find the SAME gene twisted in the EXACT same way to get the SAME effect"

"If it was designed, THEN most likely....."

What tools do you use to distinguish here between "unlikely," "likely," and "most likely?"

I can show you 1,000 cases where evos assert vociferously that genetic similarity argues for evolution. Here, you are arguing that DISSIMILARITY argues for evolution. This is why evolution is not scientific:

genetic similarity ---> evolution, and
genetic dissimilarity----->evolution. If one does not point away from evolution, the other cannot said to be pointing toward evolution.

[cookcounty]

"You are correct, this is natural selection. It is the weeding out and reduction of genetic variation when the dark variations are all gone, if that ever actually occurs. This is not evolution. Evolution requires the creation of new genetic information. We see differences in the genetics between the dark and light forms. We see different ways to do this in different species. This is not evidence of the creation of new genetic material for the different colors in modern times. Nor is it proof that new genetic information has not been created/manufactured/mutated into being in modern times. The existance of different color forms simply has nothing to do with proving or disproving evolution OR creation. Natural selection has to do with the removal of genetic material from local gene pools, and from the whole planet under extreme conditions, but can not be used to prove creation of genetic coding."

Exactly. Or, almost exactly. That last "cannot" is perhaps a bit of irrational exuberance, though. While the normal (ab)use of natural selection does not logically lead to evolution, it's too strong to say this "cannot" occur.

[ALS]

a fellow freeper noted...