| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 04/04/2002 10:05:32 AM PST by Heartlander
Good! You can explain it to Trib 'cause I'm lousy at that cosmo stuff.
you make him out to be a founder of evolution----chaos...
not the father of Science/LAWS---orderly universe!
Columbus discovered America---he didn't conjure---evolve it into existence!
These laws--continents existed prior to our understanding--knowing them---
evolution is the arts and crafts---science of the retarded---special olympics!
And evolution was around long before we were here to discover it.
I am so glad to hear that! :-)
Ah, this explains a lot! My very first and only Freepmail betrayal was by you and ever since I've been the "bad guy".
For a while I had decided it was simple ineptness.
You call that fighting?
Obviously, you've never had lunch with an actor.....
It's not real blood, RA.
Thanks all!!!
And evolution was around long before we were here to discover it.
742 posted on 4/7/02 10:22 AM Hawaii-Aleutian by RadioAstronomer
How long---when---what is evolution?
I have Irish people on my in-laws' side...
Ok, I understand. I'm still to new to differentiate between banter and real fighting. :-) Words do hurt alot sometimes.
That would probably count, though, if the Plantation scene dinner in "Apocalypse Now" Redoux is any indication, the French might rank higher.
In the case of Darwin's morals, the answer is quite simple - it is part and parcel of his theory (which BTW is philosophy not science). In fact it is at the heart of his theory. There is much in his works promoting eugenics:
Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end.
From:Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
More...
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
More...
a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life,
From: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", last chapter, last paragraph.
The speed of light is a constant in a vacuum. It slows down in different mediums. You can directly see the result of that as you place a pencil in a glass of water and it appears to bend where it penetrates. Space for all intents and purposes is a vacuum, so the speed of light is an accurate distance-measuring tool for astronomical distances.
Yes, they do. It's not exactly banter, either. But those who can't take it, normally don't dish it out.
That's what I'm getting at. The point cited is a minor part of the article. What the author is emphasizing is that the evolution of Galapagos finches is not unidirectional and that genetic drift actually works against a species ability to survive a calamity.
What would be effective would be to refute the observations i.e. the finches beaks did not become longer in the first drought nor smaller after the second one.
One claim by Craig McCarron is that MY-evolution is predicated on "slow, steady change". Is this true?
Cs fail to reason like a E, then try to beat Es over the head with their misunderstanding.
You're the one making assumptions about my motivations.
That Behe has to defend himself is not surprising. He left himself open to many different charges with his book, ignoring much of the research that contradicted his claims. In fact, one of his claims is that there was no research in molecular evolution. Ow!
That's fine, if that's what he's being beaten up about. He will soon end up on the ash heap of science if his theory is based on wild, easily discredited claims.
However, it's his mousetrap analogy that his opponents seem to be directing their energy at attacking. And most damningly, they failed. mousetrap thread
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.