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: Brumar89 who wrote (383142)	5/8/2008 8:37:00 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1586741

"I think Judaism w/o the divine (necessarily miraculous) revelation of the Torah isn't Judaism" Not so sure about that. A big part of Judaism is tied up in being God's chosen people. Which, if you look at their history, hasn't bought them much as far as favors. Christianity doesn't have that. "I'd be amazed if he censored himelf in a classroom." I wouldn't. In the sciences, ideology doesn't play very well. I've only had one instructor who tried to inject his personal beliefs outside of his field into the classroom. "His Oxford website has links to atheist websites:" That is a little different. Many professors have such stuff on their websites. Here is an example. faculty.cs.tamu.edu But, he never mentions it in class. "It has to do with the association of evolution with the origin of life" For one, chemical evolution can mean one of two things. The one you are talking about is very hypothetical. And has no real linkage to biological evolution which doesn't focus on the origins of life. They may share a common word, but that is about it. There are a multitude of hypotheses, each with varying levels of material to back it. All have major problems. en.wikipedia.org "Are you firm on your claim that bacteria don't have species?" Like with plants, the concept of prokaryote species is very different from animals, which is where most of the terminology was developed. And that is a huge problem. Suffice it to say that the concept of "species" is different for prokaryotes. "If we made a new species by selective breeding (which we haven't done), " You are sure of this, how? "I doubt seriously taxonomists would ignore it." Sure they would. Because they always have. Look at the different types of dogs, for example. Traditional taxonomy would have put them as various sub-species, if nothing else. And, in fact, some dogs likely should be a different species. en.wikipedia.org "Then they shouldn't be considered separate species. " Talk to the taxonomists. That is hardly a unique case. "So you're saying Linnaeus should have classed the races as separate species? " Given the rules he had developed, yes. "This is pretty nutty imo." Why?