<< yup lol, anyone that still thinks you evolve because you want to needs to learn a little more about current evolution
>>Perhaps someone needs to look up the name Lamarck and his incorrect theory of use and disuse.
<< yup lol, anyone that still thinks you evolve because you want to needs to learn a little more about current evolution
>>Perhaps someone needs to look up the name Lamarck and his incorrect theory of use and disuse.
The silence from the creationist camp is deafening
There really isn't much to say at this point. The article tells us the conclusions but not much more. I eagerly anticipate the article in Nature and plan on commenting then. I hope that it is much more informative. This is VERY interesting.
Don
There really isn't much to say at this point. The article tells us the conclusions but not much more. I eagerly anticipate the article in Nature and plan on commenting then. I hope that it is much more informative. This is VERY interesting.
Don
Why take so-called 'Creationism' seriously?
Really, what scientific property makes Creationism comparable to a scientific theory, evolution? You are feedining the nonscientific minds by taking it seriously. Evolution is a well established scientific theory, we don't need more evidence for it as long as there is no other scientific theory contradicts with evolution and explains the evidence accumulated so far just as well as evolution. There is no such theory at the moment; there might be one in the future, but I doubt it will contradict ourcurrent understanding of evolution in a big way. It will probably be something like we discover our understaning of evolution is wrong on details, not on fundementals, like the case with relativility and Newtonian mechanics. This has been the case for almost all well-established scientific ideas. They never turned out to be completly incorrect, just wrong on details.
Wake up US people, you are just helping the superstition by making comparisons between a logical, scientific theory and a superstition. They are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and fiends.
--
Evolution is accepted as fact by scientists and thinking people. It is no more or less a theory than physics or astronomy.
Many details of evolution are not understood, particularly the genetic mechanisms. This new discovery helps answer some of those questions, but it doesn't make evolution any more "real" than it already is. It's possible we haven't discovered every moon or even every planet in our solar system, but that doesn't mean the sun may actually revolve around the earth after all. We're pretty sure we haven't found all of the subatomic particles, and we still don't agree on what makes gravity, but physics is still secure and we don't expect the Red Sea to part on its own.
Accepting Creationism means tossing out all of established science. Creationism is the adversary of all science, not just Darwinian evolution.
--
Creationism implies a creator, which is uncomfortable for anyone who doesn't want to meet him. Doesn't change the fact that you *will* meet him, just as not believing in friction won't stop me falling off my bike if I do the above.
Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?
What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot!
--
...I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation ...
Belief? I don't believe in evolution -- I wouldn't know how to do such a thing. Belief never comes into it.
The preponderance of the evidence leads me to an obvious conclusion -- changes in individual living things occur from generation to generation. Enough time and changes occur, and you have this thing called evolution. In some ancient businesses, it's just called breeding.
If that evidence wasn't there, I'd conclude differently...but not necessarily that a spirit or deity was the necessary other choice.
( source: http://slashdot.org/science/02/02/07/0235226.shtml )
--
And on a sidenote, Evolution isn't even debatable. It's a fact. Biogenesis is the theory which 'conflicts' with genesis (creationism). However, like one of the comments above states, it's pretty silly to even consider creationism, because it isn't even a theory, or a thesis. It's nothing.
Really, what scientific property makes Creationism comparable to a scientific theory, evolution? You are feedining the nonscientific minds by taking it seriously. Evolution is a well established scientific theory, we don't need more evidence for it as long as there is no other scientific theory contradicts with evolution and explains the evidence accumulated so far just as well as evolution. There is no such theory at the moment; there might be one in the future, but I doubt it will contradict ourcurrent understanding of evolution in a big way. It will probably be something like we discover our understaning of evolution is wrong on details, not on fundementals, like the case with relativility and Newtonian mechanics. This has been the case for almost all well-established scientific ideas. They never turned out to be completly incorrect, just wrong on details.
Wake up US people, you are just helping the superstition by making comparisons between a logical, scientific theory and a superstition. They are not even apples and oranges, they are apples and fiends.
--
Evolution is accepted as fact by scientists and thinking people. It is no more or less a theory than physics or astronomy.
Many details of evolution are not understood, particularly the genetic mechanisms. This new discovery helps answer some of those questions, but it doesn't make evolution any more "real" than it already is. It's possible we haven't discovered every moon or even every planet in our solar system, but that doesn't mean the sun may actually revolve around the earth after all. We're pretty sure we haven't found all of the subatomic particles, and we still don't agree on what makes gravity, but physics is still secure and we don't expect the Red Sea to part on its own.
Accepting Creationism means tossing out all of established science. Creationism is the adversary of all science, not just Darwinian evolution.
--
Creationism implies a creator, which is uncomfortable for anyone who doesn't want to meet him. Doesn't change the fact that you *will* meet him, just as not believing in friction won't stop me falling off my bike if I do the above.
Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?
What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot!
--
...I believe in evolution. I also believe in creation ...
Belief? I don't believe in evolution -- I wouldn't know how to do such a thing. Belief never comes into it.
The preponderance of the evidence leads me to an obvious conclusion -- changes in individual living things occur from generation to generation. Enough time and changes occur, and you have this thing called evolution. In some ancient businesses, it's just called breeding.
If that evidence wasn't there, I'd conclude differently...but not necessarily that a spirit or deity was the necessary other choice.
( source: http://slashdot.org/science/02/02/07/0235226.shtml )
--
And on a sidenote, Evolution isn't even debatable. It's a fact. Biogenesis is the theory which 'conflicts' with genesis (creationism). However, like one of the comments above states, it's pretty silly to even consider creationism, because it isn't even a theory, or a thesis. It's nothing.
A mutant shrimp is being claimed as "a landmark in evolutionary biology" that proves Darwin's critics wrong. But it?s nothing of the sort, says biologist Jonathan Wells.
A research team headed by William McGinnis at the University of California at San Diego has reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without hind legs. Their report is being published in the February 6 issue of Nature.
Since shrimp normally have lots of legs, and insects have only six, the U. C. San Diego researchers claim they have discovered the genetic mechanism that enabled terrestrial insects to evolve from aquatic ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. The researchers also claim that this discovery undercuts a primary argument against the theory of evolution, because it shows that major mutations do not result in dead animals.
Not so, says Dr. Jonathan Wells, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of California at Berkeley and is currently a senior fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Wells calls the U. C. San Diego claim "greatly exaggerated," and describes the mutant shrimp as "an evolutionary dead end that tells us little or nothing about how insects originated."
Wells points out that the mutation reported by McGinnis and his colleagues occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. "The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a deformed shrimp that?s missing its hind legs. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the entire embryo from the very beginning."
Wells adds that critics of Darwinism do not claim that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit. Evolution depends on increases in fitness, since animals that are less fit tend to be eliminated by natural selection. Major developmental mutations, however, always decrease fitness.
Wells says he is not surprised that the researchers are making so much of their discovery. "There is no evidence that genetic mutations can produce the major changes required by evolution, so people who believe strongly in the theory often exaggerate the evidence to make it look better than it really is."
A research team headed by William McGinnis at the University of California at San Diego has reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without hind legs. Their report is being published in the February 6 issue of Nature.
Since shrimp normally have lots of legs, and insects have only six, the U. C. San Diego researchers claim they have discovered the genetic mechanism that enabled terrestrial insects to evolve from aquatic ancestors hundreds of millions of years ago. The researchers also claim that this discovery undercuts a primary argument against the theory of evolution, because it shows that major mutations do not result in dead animals.
Not so, says Dr. Jonathan Wells, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology from the University of California at Berkeley and is currently a senior fellow at Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Wells calls the U. C. San Diego claim "greatly exaggerated," and describes the mutant shrimp as "an evolutionary dead end that tells us little or nothing about how insects originated."
Wells points out that the mutation reported by McGinnis and his colleagues occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp. "The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an insect, but only into a deformed shrimp that?s missing its hind legs. Whatever produced the first insect would have had to transform the entire embryo from the very beginning."
Wells adds that critics of Darwinism do not claim that major mutations result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit. Evolution depends on increases in fitness, since animals that are less fit tend to be eliminated by natural selection. Major developmental mutations, however, always decrease fitness.
Wells says he is not surprised that the researchers are making so much of their discovery. "There is no evidence that genetic mutations can produce the major changes required by evolution, so people who believe strongly in the theory often exaggerate the evidence to make it look better than it really is."
<< Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?
What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot! >>
Duh...everyone knows unicorns don't exist. They were wiped out in the flood because Noah forgot to put them on the ark. Them and dinosaurs too, I mean where would an Ultrasaurus fit?
Perhaps someone needs to look up the name Lamarck and his incorrect theory of use and disuse.
can you read? i said current evolution, not some old disproven theory.
can you read? i said current evolution, not some old disproven theory.
<<
<< Aha. I agree that the Creator that you mention exists, but did you also know that He was Created by a Unicorn in a Flower-Pot?
What's that ? You don't believe me ? Well, that's just because you are afraid to meet the Unicorn in the Flower-pot! >>
Duh...everyone knows unicorns don't exist. They were wiped out in the flood because Noah forgot to put them on the ark. Them and dinosaurs too, I mean where would an Ultrasaurus fit? >>
What I find remarkable is that this Noah guy managed to build a gigantic boat, much larger than the Titanic, from wood, without any help, and even finished the thing before the wood started to rot.
Now that's what I call a marvelous piece of engineering. No really.
<< can you read? i said current evolution, not some old disproven theory. >>
I know you get it. I was using your quote to reference the above misconception.
<< What I find remarkable is that this Noah guy managed to build a gigantic boat, much larger than the Titanic, from wood, without any help, and even finished the thing before the wood started to rot.
Now that's what I call a marvelous piece of engineering. No really. >>
well, the guy lived for close to 1000 years, didn't he?
hehe.<< Wouldn't call it proof quite yet, >>
well, it doesn't single handedly prove macroevolution to be true, but it is certainly an important piece in the puzzle, no?
<<
<< yup lol, anyone that still thinks you evolve because you want to needs to learn a little more about current evolution
>>Perhaps someone needs to look up the name Lamarck and his incorrect theory of use and disuse. >>
http://www.textbookleague.org/54marck.htm
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter