Posted on 04/01/2002 1:50:07 PM PST by thinkster
Some mutations are fatal, hence the possibility disclaimer. My statement did not exhaustively describe the sources of variation in the gene pool because the crux of the matter is succinctly handled with reference to mutation alone.
"And there is a BIG difference between variation (like green hair) and a new species. (Random) Mutations might produce green hair but they are not going to, and never have, produced a new species." -- ml/nj
What constitutes a new species? Can you explain ring species? How about the recent successful breeding of the camel and llama? Have you ever compared the karyotypes of the chimpanzee and the human (humans have one pair less because of a fusion of two of the ancestral chromosomes that are not fused in the chimp)? How about comparing the genomes (98% identical)?
When you design a system how do you proceed to identify the requirements and write a specification? Do you use the Hatley-Pirbhai Method? Perhaps you should use your systems tools to examine the arguments for natural selection. Your present opinion is simply incorrect.
"Probably. I think you might mean something different from what I mean by "variation" though." -- ml/nj
Variation has a simple meaning. What are you confused about?
"This I don't buy at all. System Design does not happen in a mindless fashion." -- ml/nj
Computer simulations of evolutionary processes have laid that argument to rest with utter finality. Again I suggest that you come to grips with these concepts -- heredity, variation, overproduction, and natural selection. If you can demonstrate that a biological system with these properties cannnot evolve you will be eligible for the Nobel Prize.
So someone who opposes the ADL, the NAACP, the SPLC and Jewish donors such as Bernie Schwartz, Walter Shorenstein, Michael Eisner, Steven Spielberg, Barbara Streisand and that ninja turtle guy who just gave Democrats 7 million bucks is full of "hate?"
Sure you are on the right forum?
You might find a liberal site such as DU better. They don't allow anyone to criticize those pet groups and wonderful, so enlightened and caring people.
If you were to read thread (silly idea) you’ll note my first comment was a criticism of the ADL for meddling in political issues which has nothing to do with their core purpose. But no, I don’t think they create anti-semitism. I don’t necessarily think the couple in the suit you often reference hate Jews (that’s what the court said). They may not like the ADL, but why would they suddenly hate Jews? I suppose someone who thinks Jewish graves are desecrated in Europe because Jews in America vote for Clinton might hate Jews because of the existence of the ADL, or hate blacks because of the NAACP, but I don’t think that’s common, certainly not on FR.
I think most, not all, Americans can separate racial hatred from politics.
Bye, again.
Some "conservatives" we have on FR today. They support the ADL and lie about the Catholic League.
What constitutes a new species?
I'm not sure what the difference is between a new species and an old species. Generally I would say members of the a species, if they can breed, can only produce grandchildren that could breed other members of that species. If a new species were possible, it would mean that the animal so generated could not mate with any members of its grandparents' species if it could mate with other members of the new species who also could not generally breed with their 2nd or greater cousins.
Computer simulations of evolutionary processes have laid that argument to rest with utter finality.
Computer simulations demonstrate global warming too. If you need a back drop for Star Wars IX, they can also generate that.
You don't get to judge what demonstrates anything with "utter finality" as long as there are a significant number of scientifically educated people who disagree. None of the people so educated that I know have any problem with the atomic/molecular nature of matter. That is (relatively) "utter finality."
You strike me as little different from the Bible thumpers who insist that G-d did it all in six days, except that the Bible thumpers are consistent.
ML/NJ
It is not time that you lack but wisdom and knowledge.
" If a new species were possible, it would mean that the animal so generated could not mate with any members of its grandparents' species if it could mate with other members of the new species who also could not generally breed with their 2nd or greater cousins." -- ml/nj
You need to start at the beginning. Your comment shows that you have never considered the question or any of the data that might lead to understanding. Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species or any other classification system is an artificial construct. All life on this planet is related both phylogeneticaly and immediately through the agency of viral transduction. Speciation requires isolation which can be achieved spatially, behaviorally or genetically and may take eons to achieve or can happen overnight. The Camel and Llama cross was successful even though these two species have been geographically isolated for 30 million years yet speciation has occurred rapidly on small islands where the progeny of a very few species have proliferated into many.
"Computer simulations demonstrate global warming too. If you need a back drop for Star Wars IX, they can also generate that." -- ml/nj
How is that relevant to the question of whether or not mindless algorithms have been shown to produce design?
"You don't get to judge what demonstrates anything with "utter finality" as long as there are a significant number of scientifically educated people who disagree." -- ml/nj
It is not a judgement -- it is a statement of fact. By the way, there is not a single person, educated or not, who disagrees. You either know or you don't know. You either understand or you don't. Pick up a copy of "Evolutionary Design by Computers" edited by Peter Bentley if you don't believe me.
"You strike me as little different from the Bible thumpers who insist that G-d did it all in six days, except that the Bible thumpers are consistent." -- ml/nj
Perhaps you perception is colored by the very obvious fact that biological systems are a complete mystery to you. Everything that I have told you is simple and factual. There is nothing in what I have said that would be considered controversial by anyone who managed to stay awake during his freshman high school biology class.
Again, I suggest you consider heritability, variation, overproduction, and natural selection. If you can't at least come to grips with the heart of the matter you might as well give up discussing it entirely.
And so ends the argument.
ML/NJ
What argument? You offered your uniformed opinion on the subject and I gave you the facts. However you came by your opinion you must admit that it was not by studying biology. Commenting on evolution without knowing basic biology is like commenting on chess when you don't even know how to play checkers.
Go away.
You don't get to decide what facts are.
I'm curious. Did you ever take the SATs? Did you ever get a score that requires only closed curves to report?
And BTW, chess and checkers have virtually nothing in common with each other except to board. Ask someone else who plays.
ML/NJ
Sure I do. So does anyone who can observe, read, study and think. Your knowledge is apparently too limited to allow you to effectively discern fact from fiction. Try refuting any of my facts by reference to a documented source or an intelligent observation of your own.
"I'm curious. Did you ever take the SATs? Did you ever get a score that requires only closed curves to report?" --ml/nj
No SATs. I joined the army before finishing school. They gave a series of three tests to those who passed each in turn with a sufficient score. Out of more than 600 men in the reception station I was one of six that passed all the tests and was invited to attend Officer Candidate School. In my barracks were two fellows with Ph.D.s, a few lawyers, and a number of college graduates. None of them were among the six although I assume they had fine SAT scores (if such were in use at that time).
By the way, the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) does not under any circumstance require closed curves unless you are making a veiled reference to the fact that closed curves are homologous to zero. Or perhaps you have mistakenly confused the test with the Symmetric Axis Transform for which closed curves are used.
"And BTW, chess and checkers have virtually nothing in common with each other except to (sic) board. Ask someone else who plays." -- ml/nj
You're putting me on, right? I could have used tiddly winks and chess for all the difference it makes. The point of the simile was obvious. How did you miss it?
Here, let me explain it for you in even simpler terms. If you don't know how to play a simple game how can you be expected to understand a more complicated game?
You choose the oddest things to remark upon in your replies. You initially expressed an opinion of Darwinian evolution and subsequent posts have shown that you don't even know what it is. So instead of presenting a cogent defense of your position you focus on the irrelevant (SAT scores, for instance).
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.