I haven't had time to watch the video yet, but will. I can comment on the "evolution of influenza virus." Each year there is a drift--a small change. Approximately every 30 to 50 years there is a shift--a dramatic mutation. These shifts are what produce a flu bug so immune to standard vaccines that many deaths occur. Think Hong Kong or Swine flu. Yet, they are still influenza viruses--not a new species. Again, that is a form of microevolution, whether intended or accidental.
FV,
You understand microevolution, yet reject macroevolution? Is that right? Can you understand how one can lead to the other? That is how evolution works. Please read more on the subject. This country is falling way behind other industrialized countries in the sciences. We are in grave danger of being left out of some very important evolutionary changes in society. This kind of willful ignorance will have a profound and horrible outcome for future generations.
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by A. Robustus:
FV,
You need to educate yourself on the definition of the word "theory" as it relates to science (not it's common use) and then realize how it applies specifically to the study of biology before understanding why there are no proofs or laws in biology as there are commonly in math or chemistry. In biology, the category of "scientific theory" is as good as it gets. The theory of evolution is factual and based on empirical evidence. There is no competition to accurately and demonstrably explain the biological phenomenon. There are no other competing scientific theories regarding the evolution of life on Earth. Long ago there were, but they were discarded as new evidence and proof came to light.
Empirical? Really? So evolution has been duplicated in the laboratory?
Many times, FV. Here is one of the more recent examples.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300
Random genetic mutation and natural selection are demonstrated facts. Evolution is a fact. Empirical facts. Ask any college biology major.
I'm rather surprised that you don't accept evolution. The only people who cannot are religiously motivated. They begin with the assumption that the bible is literally true, so science to the contrary must be wrong. This is flawed thinking, and I know you have a formidable brain.
Keep in mind that the strength of the system of evolution is what ticks off the Fundies the most. An honest, academic examination of evolutionary biology will convince all honest, normally intelligent people of its veracity. Every one of them.
DF
Originally Posted by gbrk:
...I was just saying that I have little doubt that Darwin was the first or only one to contemplate the origins of life or living beings and that if he got it right then why other minds, before, didn't conceive of such if it was so incontrovertible.
As before, your premise and assumptions are incorrect. Which is why I ask that you read up on this stuff. It's readily available and would make for a better discussion, with valid questions on your part.
Darwin was not the first, only or last to contemplate the diversity of life on Earth. There actually were other hypotheses before, during and after that all failed due to a lack support by evidence. However, more than 100 years later, the basics of Darwin's scientific theory are still proven correct. Darwin also did not do it alone, Alfred Russel Wallace is considered the co-founder of evolutionary theory. Lastly, evolutionary theory has nothing to say about the origins of life.
quote:Originally Posted by Unobtanium:I think this experiemnt is just amazing: http://www.newscientist.com/ar...hift-in-the-lab.html[quote] Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:And evolution has been observed by whom? (Not referring to microevolution conducted by animal breeders, but the birth of an entirely new species.) Also, empirical evidence should ideally come from a study conducted under strict protocols and be able to be duplicated under those same set of circumstances.
Foxes and dogs are wholly separate species. They cannot interbreed at all and are almost as distinct as dogs and cats. This amazing experiment is an amazing display of what artificial selection can do:
Hi Uno,
Please let us know when this bacteria becomes a frog, fish, cat, etc.
Regarding your comment that dogs and foxes are wholly separate species; I beg to differ with you. And, so does this article:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CANID HYBRID
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid
Members of the dog genus Canis: wolves, dogs (both common dogs and dingoes), coyotes, and golden jackals cannot interbreed with members of the wider dog family: the Canidae, such as South American canids, foxes, African wild dogs, bat-eared foxes or raccoon dog; or, if they could, their offspring would be infertile.
Members of the genus Canis species can, however, all interbreed to produce fertile offspring, with two exceptions: the side-striped jackal and black-backed jackal. Although these two theoretically could interbreed with each other to produce fertile offspring, they cannot hybridize successfully with the rest of the genus Canis.
No reliable reports or genetic testing prove the existence of dog–fox hybrids (called doxes), though there are many unsubstantiated reports of such hybrids.
In the United Kingdom, an unconfirmed female terrier/fox hybrid was reported and later euthanized. British gamekeeper folklore claims that terrier *****es can produce offspring with male foxes. Other dog breeds claimed to have hybridized with foxes are the Shetland sheepdog, Alaskan malamute, Siberian husky, and most of the hound groups.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As I have often said, Micro Evolution, i.e., adaptation within a species, is a fact. Macro Evolution, i.e., Darwinian Evolution, is the product of someone overactive imagination.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
quote: Originally Posted by Unobtanium:quote: Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:Empirical? Really? So evolution has been duplicated in the laboratory?
Yes. The flu shot you will receive this fall is based on thoroughly understood aspects of one part of evolution - random mutation (other parts being natural selection).
Hey, Uno,
Please let us know the next time you get a flu shot. We all want to come and watch your arm become a snake, a fish, or maybe even revert back to being a monkey or an ape. Then, I will become a believer in Darwinian Evolution.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
quote:Originally Posted by DarkAngel:FV, You understand microevolution, yet reject macroevolution? Is that right? Can you understand how one can lead to the other? That is how evolution works. Please read more on the subject. This country is falling way behind other industrialized countries in the sciences. We are in grave danger of being left out of some very important evolutionary changes in society. This kind of willful ignorance will have a profound and horrible outcome for future generations.
Hi Dark,
If the changes in society you speak of are Darwinian Evolution -- I can only pray that you are correct. I sincerely pray that our American nation is left FAR BEHIND in all aspects of the imaginary Darwinian Dream.
Reject Macro Evolution, i.e., Darwin's pot induced ideas that one species can evolve into a totally different species -- YOU BETCHA!
And, yes, I can pray that our young generations will grow up with enough faith in God -- to reject all the fairy tales created by Darwin's long ocean voyage.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
quote:Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:Random genetic mutation and natural selection are demonstrated facts. Evolution is a fact. Empirical facts. Ask any college biology major.
Hi Deep,
Since Darwinian Evolution, i.e., one species evolves into a totally different species --is a FACT; will you please show me where to find that elusive old MISSING LINK? It seems that scientists and pseudo-scientists have been searching (in vain) for it for over 150 years. And, guess what, except for some fakes -- there is NO MISSING LINK! Now, I wonder why that is true. Could it be that NO FACTS support Darwinian Evolution? RIP Darwinian Evolution!!
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
The list of beauties just keeps growing.http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Originally Posted by Bill Gray:
quote:Originally Posted by DarkAngel:FV, You understand microevolution, yet reject macroevolution? Is that right? Can you understand how one can lead to the other? That is how evolution works. Please read more on the subject. This country is falling way behind other industrialized countries in the sciences. We are in grave danger of being left out of some very important evolutionary changes in society. This kind of willful ignorance will have a profound and horrible outcome for future generations.
Hi Dark,
If the changes in society you speak of are Darwinian Evolution -- I can only pray that you are correct. I sincerely pray that our American nation is left FAR BEHIND in all aspects of the imaginary Darwinian Dream.
Reject Macro Evolution, i.e., Darwin's pot induced ideas that one species can evolve into a totally different species -- YOU BETCHA!
And, yes, I can pray that our young generations will grow up with enough faith in God -- to reject all the fairy tales created by Darwin's long ocean voyage.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
From your post and the era you reference frequently, I assume you are in your 70's. Correct? It is not uncommon for those of your generation to reject science in favor of spiritual beliefs. You also understand micro-evolution yet reject macro? So over millions of years of small changes you can't understand how from point A-Z you would eventually have major changes? It really doesn't matter what you refuse to see or are incapable of understanding. The world will keep moving and progressing long after you (and I) are gone. What I hate to see is people your age wanting to deny the children of this generation a real and honest education and understanding of the world they live in based on your superstitions. You are not a nice man Bill Gray, nor are you a productive part of a healthy, learning, an advancing society. I personally will be glad when your kind have finally gone home to see your Creator and left this world to those with sharper minds and more advanced understanding. I'm sure you look forward to that day also.
One more thing. What does pot have to do with any of this?
There is no real argument here. There is only one side, and it isn't the one that Bill is on.
Originally Posted by Rramnlimnn_TheGreat:
The list of beauties just keeps growing.http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
Well,,there goes the picnic..
.
Hi Dark,
You tell me, "Bill, From your post and the era you reference frequently, I assume you are in your 70's. Correct? It is not uncommon for those of your generation to reject science in favor of spiritual beliefs."
First, I will not start of by calling you a kid or a young punk. Instead, I will attempt to talk around your youth. Yes, I am in my 70s -- 74 next month, to be precise. You say that is is common for those "of my generation" to reject science. That is odd -- since it is my generation which has put that computer in your home and office -- so that you can spend your time posting on the Religion Forum. Not bad for a bunch of old fogey's -- right?
Yes, I spent almost 50 years of my life in the computer industry -- in both the technical/engineering side and in the sales/marketing side. Before there was such a thing as a PC or MAC computer -- I was giving seminars teaching folks how microcomputers (you know, those little things inside your computer which make it work) function and how to use them.
It was through my efforts that the second computer store in the world (Byte Shop, Mountain View, CA), and the first computer store chain (Byte Shop) came into being. This was a direct result of a seminar I gave at the Hyatt Hotel in Palo Alto, California. And, I have been involved in a number of other computer industry events and innovations which you may or may not recognize -- depending upon just how young you are today.
So, I would say that I have not been on the back burner of technology and science -- as you would like to imply.
And, believe it or not -- I do not reject science. Science and technology have been very much a part of my adult life. However, I never lose sight of the fact that science, all the sciences, are subsets of the Creation. When "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1) -- part of that Creation was the body of sciences which govern our universe -- and the laws which define those sciences. Yes, my Friend, God did create all the sciences -- and all the rest of the universe -- in only six days.
Then, you say, "You also understand micro-evolution, yet reject macro?"
Actually, I would say that God and His Written Word, the Bible -- rejects Macro Evolution, i.e., Darwinian Evolution. Since they are polar opposites -- for one to be true, the other has to be false. Since I know that God and His Bible are true -- that means that Charley Darwin was wrong.
And, then, you say, "So over millions of years of small changes you can't understand how from point A-Z you would eventually have major changes? It really doesn't matter what you refuse to see or are incapable of understanding."
Once again, you are confusing yourself. You are putting Micro Evolution into the Macro Evolution bowl -- and it doesn't fit. Yes, all those minute and even major changes have occurred. We call them adaptations; where species adapt to environmental changes -- adapting to new environments over thousands of years.
Next, you tell me, "The world will keep moving and progressing long after you (and I) are gone. What I hate to see is people your age wanting to deny the children of this generation a real and honest education and understanding of the world they live in based on your superstitions."
Yes, you and I will pass away. And, I pray that our generations will leave our children better equipped spiritually and intellectually to deal with the changing world. We cannot do that if their heads are stuffed full of false teachings and erroneous sciences which have no basis in fact -- such as Darwinian Evolution.
You tell me, "You are not a nice man Bill Gray, nor are you a productive part of a healthy, learning, an advancing society."
I suppose I have been, and will be again, called worse. No big deal. If you draw the conclusion that I am not a productive part of the new societal norms which are coming from the secular world -- then, all I can say is, "Praise the Lord!"
Will our society continue to decay, morally and spiritually? Unfortunately, yes. But, is it is not unexpected. The Bible tells us all about what is happening today and why. Your secular world gets all excited and giggly -- thinking you are improving society. When, in fact, it is just your feeble attempt to adapt God's Word to fit your decaying world. And, God has told us, in the Bible, that this would happen. Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
Finally, you tell me, "I personally will be glad when your kind have finally gone home to see your Creator and left this world to those with sharper minds and more advanced understanding. I'm sure you look forward to that day also."
Thank you, my Friend. But, unfortunate for you and your generation -- I plan on being around for quite a while yet. And, yes, I will continue to share the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ with all who will listen or read what I write. So, God willing, I will be here on the Religion Forum for a long, long time yet. Smile! God loves you!
Dark, I am so happy that I can make your life better with my writings. Who knows, maybe one day some small seed I, or another Christian believer, sows will find that wee bit of hidden good soil within you -- and the Holy Spirit will bring you into the family of God. I would love to walk with you in heaven one day. But, not too soon! I still have a lot of writing to do down here.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
I have never said that I accept evolution...or not. I will say it has not been proven. I have no problem with however God made mankind. If i have to choose one or the other, I don't choose evolution as currently taught--too many loopholes.
Cross breeding of species is usually accomplished with some help from man. As for a random fox/dog hookup, it would seem that has not been proved. Similarly, tales abound in this area of bob cat/house cat matings, but none has ever been demonstrated by genetic testing. If accomplished, it would beg the question: Is the resultant offspring superior to its parents? If not, wouldn't that be devolution?
I've graduated from two universities and one junior college with a biology minor and a nursing major among my courses...the only prof I ever had who taught evolution as fact? An English professor at UNA.
While this concerns another topic in the religion section, I see where Jimi called someone "stupid." I have to ask Jimi why he would choose the name of someone, albeit a great talent, but hardly the most sapient of beings, for a screen name?
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I have never said that I accept evolution...or not. I will say it has not been proven. I have no problem with however God made mankind. If i have to choose one or the other, I don't choose evolution as currently taught--too many loopholes.
Cross breeding of species is usually accomplished with some help from man. As for a random fox/dog hookup, it would seem that has not been proved. Similarly, tales abound in this area of bob cat/house cat matings, but none has ever been demonstrated by genetic testing. If accomplished, it would beg the question: Is the resultant offspring superior to its parents? If not, wouldn't that be devolution?
I've graduated from two universities and one junior college with a biology minor and a nursing major among my courses...the only prof I ever had who taught evolution as fact? An English professor at UNA.
While this concerns another topic in the religion section, I see where Jimi called someone "stupid." I have to ask Jimi why he would choose the name of someone, albeit a great talent, but hardly the most sapient of beings, for a screen name?
How about because it is my real name? I didn't have anything to do with choose my name. My parents gave it to me a long time ago. I may be the only person here who dares to use his real name. Why don't you use yours?
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I have never said that I accept evolution...or not. I will say it has not been proven. I have no problem with however God made mankind. If i have to choose one or the other, I don't choose evolution as currently taught--too many loopholes.
Cross breeding of species is usually accomplished with some help from man. As for a random fox/dog hookup, it would seem that has not been proved. Similarly, tales abound in this area of bob cat/house cat matings, but none has ever been demonstrated by genetic testing. If accomplished, it would beg the question: Is the resultant offspring superior to its parents? If not, wouldn't that be devolution?
I've graduated from two universities and one junior college with a biology minor and a nursing major among my courses...the only prof I ever had who taught evolution as fact? An English professor at UNA.
While this concerns another topic in the religion section, I see where Jimi called someone "stupid." I have to ask Jimi why he would choose the name of someone, albeit a great talent, but hardly the most sapient of beings, for a screen name?
How about because it is my real name? I didn't have anything to do with choose my name. My parents gave it to me a long time ago. I may be the only person here who dares to use his real name. Why don't you use yours?
First, I don't use my real name since the Terms of Service at the time of my registration suggested users not do so. Second, I doubt Jimi Hendrix is your real name. Third, yes, you have every right to change your name if you are of the age of legal consent and wish to...so, yes, at this point, your name is the one you choose to live with day in and day out, be it Albert Einstein or Mortimer Snerd. Fourth, I've been a member of this forum for over four years without calling anyone else "stupid." It's relatively simple if you have a sufficient vocabulary.
Originally Posted by gbrk:
Darwin came up with his theory while out watching monkeys or out thinking to himself and put all these things together under the banner of origin of the species or natural selection.
Good lord. You say some ignorant things quite often, GM, but this one takes the cake.
Darwin developed this theory over the span of nearly 30 years!
He started out simply as a naturalist who wanted to study and catalog various life forms from various points on earth. During this time, he started to realize that all the forms of life seem to be related yet different. He seeked to explain this apparent similarity and came up with a profound idea that turned the world on it's ear.
The idea was rejected unanimously by the world at first. But Darwin's meticulous evidence could not be ignored. It a very short time, his theory became almost universally accepted and he became a rock star of his era.
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
they are still influenza viruses--not a new species. Again, that is a form of microevolution, whether intended or accidental.
FV,
Science makes no distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Those are terms conjured only by religious fundamentalists.
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I have never said that I accept evolution...or not. I will say it has not been proven. I have no problem with however God made mankind. If i have to choose one or the other, I don't choose evolution as currently taught--too many loopholes.
Cross breeding of species is usually accomplished with some help from man. As for a random fox/dog hookup, it would seem that has not been proved. Similarly, tales abound in this area of bob cat/house cat matings, but none has ever been demonstrated by genetic testing. If accomplished, it would beg the question: Is the resultant offspring superior to its parents? If not, wouldn't that be devolution?
I've graduated from two universities and one junior college with a biology minor and a nursing major among my courses...the only prof I ever had who taught evolution as fact? An English professor at UNA.
While this concerns another topic in the religion section, I see where Jimi called someone "stupid." I have to ask Jimi why he would choose the name of someone, albeit a great talent, but hardly the most sapient of beings, for a screen name?
How about because it is my real name? I didn't have anything to do with choose my name. My parents gave it to me a long time ago. I may be the only person here who dares to use his real name. Why don't you use yours?
First, I don't use my real name since the Terms of Service at the time of my registration suggested users not do so. Second, I doubt Jimi Hendrix is your real name. Third, yes, you have every right to change your name if you are of the age of legal consent and wish to...so, yes, at this point, your name is the one you choose to live with day in and day out, be it Albert Einstein or Mortimer Snerd. Fourth, I've been a member of this forum for over four years without calling anyone else "stupid." It's relatively simple if you have a sufficient vocabulary.
Unfortunately, "stupid" is the most accurate description for some people. No other word works quite as well.
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
Originally Posted by JimiHendrix:
Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:
I have never said that I accept evolution...or not. I will say it has not been proven. I have no problem with however God made mankind. If i have to choose one or the other, I don't choose evolution as currently taught--too many loopholes.
Cross breeding of species is usually accomplished with some help from man. As for a random fox/dog hookup, it would seem that has not been proved. Similarly, tales abound in this area of bob cat/house cat matings, but none has ever been demonstrated by genetic testing. If accomplished, it would beg the question: Is the resultant offspring superior to its parents? If not, wouldn't that be devolution?
I've graduated from two universities and one junior college with a biology minor and a nursing major among my courses...the only prof I ever had who taught evolution as fact? An English professor at UNA.
While this concerns another topic in the religion section, I see where Jimi called someone "stupid." I have to ask Jimi why he would choose the name of someone, albeit a great talent, but hardly the most sapient of beings, for a screen name?
How about because it is my real name? I didn't have anything to do with choose my name. My parents gave it to me a long time ago. I may be the only person here who dares to use his real name. Why don't you use yours?
First, I don't use my real name since the Terms of Service at the time of my registration suggested users not do so. Second, I doubt Jimi Hendrix is your real name. Third, yes, you have every right to change your name if you are of the age of legal consent and wish to...so, yes, at this point, your name is the one you choose to live with day in and day out, be it Albert Einstein or Mortimer Snerd. Fourth, I've been a member of this forum for over four years without calling anyone else "stupid." It's relatively simple if you have a sufficient vocabulary.
Unfortunately, "stupid" is the most accurate description for some people. No other word works quite as well.
Unfortunately FirenzeVeritas I find myself in total agreement with Jimi on this post, he made, therefore consider your, well composed and thought out, reply as wasted as for it to be productive the target of the reply would have to undersand, comprehend, and be capable of digesting it. Therefore for "some people" your efforts will not be fruitful.
Originally Posted by The Nagel:
heh heh heh... Bill is websurfing for sorftcore Pron 
pervert.
And lusting..........according to the Bible, that's a no no. 
Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by The Nagel:
heh heh heh... Bill is websurfing for sorftcore Pron
pervert.
And lusting..........according to the Bible, that's a no no.
---------------------------------
semi,,,When you say "and lusting", thats a no no.
Would that have to be a desire with such intent that given the phyical reality of it,
you would complete the deed.
Because I'm thinking if your mind is just wondering and you see somebody, your
first thought is, damm! that is so fine, (or something like that) but you may not go
through with if given the chance. So that wouldn't be against the Bible?
Iv
Ask your wife invic.
Originally Posted by Jennifer:
Ask your wife invic.
----------------
So jen jen, you don't know.
.
I wouldn't know what your wife considered "cheating". Her idea and the bible's idea might not be the same.
Originally Posted by Jennifer:
I wouldn't know what your wife considered "cheating". Her idea and the bible's idea might not be the same.
Business must be slow...
Originally Posted by Blind Melon Chit'lin:
Originally Posted by Jennifer:
I wouldn't know what your wife considered "cheating". Her idea and the bible's idea might not be the same.
Business must be slow...
----------------------
Yeah, Business as usual, ain't no god.
.
Here is another oops ... So many declare so many things as FACT when they are Opinion or theory only to find out that OOPS we may have made a mistake. Now we have new Facts and this is definitely it, no more corrections and this is fact. Or until the next oops.
Here is the link in case the embedded doesn't work:
http://video.aol.com/video/dino-might-the-early-show/3307729383?ncid=wsc-video-cards-headline-885756545001