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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (63392)	11/28/2014 4:31:16 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

Hope this helps your understanding. Take care... Evolution for Creationists "The average person has difficulty understanding the new discoveries and new evolutionary science, so we cannot expect Creationists will understand or be willing to learn about the wonders of science and the awesome beauty of the natural world." Craig Gosling A fellow Center for Inquiry (CFI) member and friend had long been troubled by Creationist claims that scientists cannot demonstrate evolution in the lab before their eyes. Creationists demand that they need this kind of proof if they are to accept evolution. The following is my reply to my friend and to all Creationists. Dear Joe: Creationists demand to see evolution for themselves if they are to believe. Their question is: "Can science show us evolution in progress, right before our eyes?" They demand to see a new "species" or new "kind" of animal evolve in the lab or during field research. As you and I know, and probably they, this can't be done with animals such as elephants and humans that have slow reproduction rates. On the other hand, if their question is "Can evolution create a new 'species' or 'kind' of animal or plant in the lab or during field research?" then we can definitely say "Yes, it can." Unlike you, creationists tend to be insincere. Scientific proofs of evolution will not necessarily satisfy them as it would you. Their emotional belief is not based upon fact and science; it is immune to reason; and it survives fossil, geological, cosmological, and biological evidence. It easily survived the flat earth debacle and the farce of the egocentricity of the earth. There is no evidence that will assuredly convince them. In your case, however, evidence reigns supreme; you have an open mind that can be changed as new evidence is discovered through scientific inquiry. So, the following response is to your open ears and mind, not to their blindness. First, we need a clarification of what is meant by "species" and "kind." The pre-evolution concept of "species" was rejected by Darwin: For if every form which has ever lived on this earth were suddenly to reappear ... it would be quite impossible to give definitions by which each group could be distinguished from other groups, as all would blend together by steps as fine as those between the finest existing varieties ... In short, we shall have to treat species in the same manner as those naturalists treat genera, who admit that genera are merely artificial combinations made for convenience. This may not be a cheering prospect; but we shall at last be freed from the vain search for the undiscovered and undiscoverable essence of the term species. The species concept is based upon Creationists' false claim that species are not related. Evolutionists, of course claim that all life is related, having arisen from a common ancestor. The modern biological definition of species is: "populations of animals or plants that breed successfully together." According to this concept there never is a point where a new species comes into existence except for hybridization or symbiogenesis. The biblical term "kind" is ambiguous and useless; it usually refers to the pre-Darwinian definition of "species." When next you discus evolution with a Creationist and he challenges you to prove that evolution can create a new "species" or "kind" of animal, answer him by saying: Here is how a new large mammal can be created, if not in the lab then in the barn. "The Good Lord," in His wisdom had old Noah load on board the Ark two of each kind of animal. That means two donkeys and two horses, and two bison and two cattle, among many other animal pairs. It is fair to assume "God" apparently considered donkeys and horses as separate "kinds" or "species." If so, when the first fertile mule or hinny was born, as occasionally happens, a brand new animal has been created that was not created during creation week. How about a lion and tiger hybrid, a llama and camel hybrid, a bison and cattle hybrid, or the thousands of plant hybrids? Any reasonable person must acknowledge that they are new animals and new plants that were not present a million years ago, or even six thousand years ago. Hybridization occurs in many wild and domestic animals as well as in plants, and each time it does, a new entity is born. Depending upon environmental conditions, the new creature or plant will survive and thrive, or become extinct, at least until the next hybrid is born. It is a perfect example of how evolution and DNA replication, recombination, and natural selection work. New "kinds" of plants also occurred in the lab when Wild Mustard plants were purposely bred into cauliflower, broccoli, kohlrabi, Brussels sprouts, kale, and collard greens. Grocery stores are filled with new genetically designed fruits and vegetables that were not created during creation week. Ask a Creationist how it is possible that the earth contains many animals and plants that were designed and produced by science. Are they not obvious products of evolution? Ask them how it is possible that organisms exist today, such as the euglena, that are neither animal nor plant; or neither male nor female, such the asexual amoeba. God must have loved one-celled creatures because He made so many of them, a million times more than all the other life on the earth. As I recall, there was no mention of one-celled organisms being loaded on the ark. Shouldn't we assume they were created and evolved after the creation? What other explanation can there be? Many new "kinds" of birds, fish, and amphibians, have been recorded and documented during our lifetime by laboratory and field studies. Blind cave fish are a good example of evolution. Natural events washed them into dark caves where they did not need their sight so they actually lost their eyes. Recently, scientists have brought several populations of blind cave fish back into the light and stimulated them to evolve back to having eyes. This seems to be a great example of evolution in an aquarium lab where Creationists can actually witness it. Here is a partial list of new "kinds" or "species"documented in lab and field studies: Blind cave fish and amphibians, many species of birds (including Darwin's finches) have evolved to a point where a distant generation no longer mates with its progenitor. Several "species" of fish (including guppies), many kinds of bacteria, thousands of symbiotic animals and plants that, like hybrids, were newly created when they combined. Lichens are a combination of two other organisms; algae and fungus depend upon each other for survival but can be separated in the lab and coaxed to live on their own. Salamanders are the first vertebrates that have been found to have incorporated chloroplasts into their cells and thereby became able to utilize the energy of the sun through photosynthesis. Slugs with chloroplasts no longer have to eat; they just lie in the sun to soak up energy like a plant. Evolution has happened and is happening all around us, in the lab, in the field, and in the barn. Animal and plant populations are constantly diversifying along their own evolutionary line, creating new species over time. Occasionally, their distinct lines merge back together creating another new species. New species never occur within one or a few generations, however, unless it is through hybridization or symbiogenesis as previously discussed. Also Joe, don't let Creationists fool you with micro and macroevolution. There is only one kind of evolution regardless of how long it takes. Evolution usually progresses slowly in step with the changing environment, but Occasionally, it speeds up with punctuated equilibrium, symbiogenesis, and epigenetics. Although it is true that animals such as alligators, sharks, and coelacanths persist from the ancient past into present with little change, keep in mind that evolution is always in operation keeping the mutating DNA in step with their (relatively) static environments. Darwin's theory has now been enhanced with the new concepts of hox genes, symbiogenesis, and epigenetics.These new discoveries help to explain the diversity of life and the speed with which it has inhabited our good earth. The average person has difficulty understanding the new discoveries and new evolutionary science, so we cannot expect Creationists will understand or be willing to learn about the wonders of science and the awesome beauty of the natural world. Sincerely, Craig

To: Brumar89 who wrote (63392)

11/28/2014 1:48:56 PM

From: Solon

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 69300

The Swallow and the TROLL boy are really hiking up their skirts this Friday! Commiserating and licking their wounds like a couple of young cubs after meeting a porcupine! It was this very effeminate "comforting" behaviour that inspired the poem known as “Gregee’s Song”!

They really have serious issues. The troll bawled for a couple of dozen posts again this morning how he never got any attention from his mom and how much he hates her. Really sad. :-(

What happened to that poor kid to keep him at that emotional/mental age of maladjustment??

The Swallow and the Troll (AKA Gweg’s song!)

I realize that my little troll is only half a man

He minces and he winces but he does the best he can

He likes to swing a baseball bat to make himself look tall

But when he climbs the pitcher’s mound

He has no balls at all!

But still he is my troll boy

And I cannot help but love it

Cause when I am too hard on him

He tells me where to shove it!

He likes to pop his chest out till

It’s bigger than his belly

But when I’m up against it

He is just a blob of jelly!

He likes to boast and brag and belch out in a voice of thunder

But when a man confronts him he is just a gutless wonder!

Yes, he is my TROLL boy, I ain’t really criticising

Cause he is the only friend I have this side of the horizon!

Yes, I can get disgusted from his huffing and his puffing

For the truth is in his center

There ain’t even any stuffing!

And it isn’t always just because he’s always overpowered

But I can tell you truthfully--he’s nothing but a coward!

Why do I divulge the inner nature of my troll?

When his brains are like the contents of a lawyer’s toilet bowl?

Well, it’s because he craves attention--and he loves it when I’m rough

So I boot him in the rear and then I pound him with a cuff!

He taunts and blubbers (as trolls do)

A pathetic little bastard!

But eventually he falls asleep when I have got him plastered!

Oh yes my name is Gregoree

I am the faithful Swallow

The TROLL boy is my only friend

The special guy I follow!

My TROLL boy is the Swallow

And I am just the chirp

I giveth him the bottle and he giveth me the burp!

And when my other friends are drinking blood before the pulpit

My TROLL friend gives me so much joy that I can hardly gulp it!

And when I spin my Potter’s wheel

And I think about his nose

I let my mind go natural and stay completely closed!

His smell is like manure, rarefied (but oh so true)!

And he smears it on the Message Boards...when he musters number two!

And when I’m on the Canvas and I’m bruised and all alone

We settle down to chicken and he passes me the bone!

When normal people ask us why it is we are together

We spread out wings and cluck for joy...

We’re chickens of a feather!

And when we’re picking cotton and we hold our empty sacks

I feel his breath behind me and I know he has my back!

And often when I’m at my wheel and feeling sad and hurty

I dream about my TROLL boy with his IQ over 30!

And when I'm at the station house where all are in a rush

You can be sure that I ain't sitting waiting for a bus!

I'm only there to catch a little bit of bathroom humour

And waiting for my chance to be a talented consumer!

Now there’s a boy (a troll I mean)

You never want to cuff

For just as surely as you do--he will say:

“Gregoree—my best friend! Gegoree, my SWALLOW—the GOOSE of my life!

Gregoree, oh gregoree--oh dear dear Gregoree

My dearest SWALLOW—will you ever ever ever have ENOUGH!

The Swallow and the Troll (AKA Gweg’s song!)

To: Brumar89 who wrote (63392)	11/28/2014 8:39:02 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 69300

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution Michael J. Behe The Free Press, New York ISBN 0-684-82754-9 xii + 307 pp Reviewed by Peter Atkins, University of Oxford For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument. So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to <URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html>). Specialists far more competent than me have analyzed the numerous and gross deficiencies in Dr. Behe's flatulent arguments in considerable technical detail (see especially <URL: http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html>), so there would be an emptiness in my remarks if I were to try to emulate them. If I am to add anything to the discussion, I am forced to choose to look at the book from a different perspective. The perspective I shall adopt is that of misrepresentation, for that quality pervades this book at every level. First, the book is a misrepresentation of origin. Dr. Behe (a Roman Catholic) pretends not to have "God" in mind as the Intelligent Designer, carefully picking his way round the identification of this synonym. As others have surmised, this misrepresentation of origin can be seen as part of the creationist strategy to pretend to distance themselves from religion in order that their intellectually base attitudes can be brought into schools. Dr. Behe denies that he is a creationist, finding evolution "fairly convincing" (itself an attitude that suggests to the suspicious ear dissimulation); yet the book is undeniably a covert creationist tract, with the Intelligent Designer nothing other than a God and Intelligent Design merely active creation. That the creationists have resorted to this subversion should surprise none of us, for the ethical poverty of their actions matches the intellectual poverty of their beliefs. Any resort to designs and designers is actually the smuggling in of God and creationism in one of its slippery forms. Second, the book is a misrepresentation of facts. Dr. Behe claims that science is largely silent on the details of molecular evolution, the emergence of complex biochemical pathways and processes that underlie the more traditional manifestations of evolution at the level of organisms. Tosh! There are hundreds, possibly thousands, of scientific papers that deal with this very subject. For an entry into this important and flourishing field, and an idea of the intense scientific effort that it represents (see the first link above). To claim that here lies a subject suspiciously ignored by the scientific establishment is a travesty of the truth. That progress is slow may be the case (how does one measure the rate of progress in science?), but can be explained by the extraordinary difficulty of disentangling the clues. Evolutionary biochemists do not have the advantage of solid evidence in the form of bones: they have to build up their edifices of understanding from more subtle fossil evidence in the form of sequences in DNA. No wonder progress is slow; but we should not accept that it is not being made, with remarkable insights into our origins being achieved. Dr. Behe is simply not aware of the literature; or perhaps is aware, and prefers to misrepresent it as absent. He claims, with more reason, that evolutionary biochemistry receives but nugatory mention in standard texts of biochemistry. What is that supposed to signify? Dr. Behe would have us infer that it is a subject on which science is necessarily silent. The truth is that the authors of mainstream texts typically mould their contents to mainstream courses, and have to spend their limited pages on mainstream topics. Evolutionary biochemistry is deeply interesting, but there is not sufficient room for it in mainstream courses, in part because of its complexity. Third, the book is a misrepresentation of the scientific method, happily hoist by its own petard. Authors are not to be congratulated when they identify regions of science that could have more answers (for which evolutionary biochemistry certainly qualifies), and interpret that lack as indicating that the questions are intrinsically unanswerable. Despite Dr. Behe's training as a scientist, he has been brought up in a religious milieu where answers by instant gratification are the norm. Science requires truly hard work to achieve the reliable understanding it purveys; there it is in sharp contrast to religion's fatuous attempts at providing understanding or its human-treasonable claims that understanding is beyond human comprehension. With hard work and even the possibility of progress dismissed, Dr Behe waves his magic wand, discards the scientific method, and launches into his philosopher's stone of universal explanation: it was all designed. Presenting this silly, lazy, ignorant, and intellectually abominable view -- essentially discarding reason and invoking that first resort of the intellectually challenged (that is, God) -- he present what he thinks is the most wondrous of theories, that the only way of achieving complexity is by design. There we see Dr. Behe dangling from his petard, proclaiming his "science" of intelligent design, while not troubling to seek the regulation of that awesome monitor of scientific enterprise, peer review. I would do Dr. Behe and his book a disservice if I left the impression that it was all misrepresentation. Some features it represents with startling clarity. One is the crippling effect of limited imagination. Dr. Behe's failure to explain complex processes and structures in evolutionary terms is a reflection not on science but on Dr. Behe's limited powers of imagination. That his paradigm folksy example of a mousetrap as a fine example of an irreducibly complex entity has been shown to be false by an amusing note on the inverse evolution of such a trap (<URL: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html>) is but a minor but still significant illustration of the mouse hole of limited outlook that Dr. Behe has dug for himself. On a grander scale, he seems totally unaware of the ability of nature to improvise, using whatever happens to be lying around to achieve a local advantage, and thus embark on the awesome vehicle of evolution. The danger of this book -- and why it receives so much attention -- is partly that it is so well written (or so some find; I among them, I must confess). I learned a huge amount from it (I think), and it was only my wary eye that held me back from slipping along with the argument. Moreover, here we have a real, and very competent (but deeply misguided) scientist purveying some very good science and pointing up some very important omissions in our current understanding. Dr. Behe and his book must be as gold-dust among the dross of the general run of creationists and their so-called literature. The general reader will not know the limitations of his argument, or be aware of his misrepresentations of the facts, and will easily be seduced by his arguments. After all, it seems so very much easier, and certainly avoids a lot of intellectual effort, to accept that God did it all, even though we have to interpret the carefully coded allusions to this incompetent figment of impoverished imaginations.