Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (383092)	5/7/2008 5:09:11 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586700

"So the comment about Christianity w/o the miracles = Judaism didn't make sense. " Sure it does. Judaism with out the miracles is still Judaism. I think Judaism w/o the divine (necessarily miraculous) revelation of the Torah isn't Judaism anymore than Christianity w/o the resurrection of Jesus (also miraculous) wouldn't be Christianity. ----------------- "Oxford, where Richard Dawkins is a professor. " Are you sure that is taught there? I'd be surprised if he raised the issue in class, given what he teaches. Since he writes general audience "science" books saying it and travels around the world lecturing on it, I'd be amazed if he censored himelf in a classroom. His Oxford website has links to atheist websites: simonyi.ox.ac.uk simonyi.ox.ac.uk ----------------------------------------- "One of our kids high school biology books had "chemical evolution" bolded as a term to memorize in its discussion of the origin of life. Why?" Probably because they thought it important. However, what does that have to do with evolution and speciation? It has to do with the association of evolution with the origin of life, which the textbook explicitly did by attributing it to a type of evolution i.e. "chemical evolution. ----------------------------- "Have we observed prokaryotes changing into eukaryotes?" What would be the evolutionary pressures causing this to happen? I can't think of any. Are you firm on your claim that bacteria don't have species? ----------------------------- "Sorry, we've never created a new species by selective breeding." Taxonomists only cover natural speciation. So your statement isn't really valid. If we made a new species by selective breeding (which we haven't done), I doubt seriously taxonomists would ignore it. ------------------------------ "But generally, species means things that CAN'T produce fertile offspring. " That is not correct. Red wolves, for example, cross-breed with coyotes. Then they shouldn't be considered separate species. --------------------------- "humans wouldn't all be one species as some religions (and in some past eras civil law) forbid intermarriage and residence on different continents prevents various human groups from intermarrying." Precisely. Linnaeus didn't want to apply the same rules to humans. So he used the term "races". Which he didn't use for any other creature. So you're saying Linnaeus should have classed the races as separate species? How about the Ashkenazi Jews you used as an example - your use implies they're a separate species too. This is pretty nutty imo.