Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
dufas
Trad climber
san francisco
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 08:01pm PT
|
well, there anachonism, you may be assuming that ol' Jody doesn't want to be in the ring.
I think that he does.
He believes he bears the burden of carrying on as the sole protector of religious and cultural piety in an otherwise unwholesome bordello of ultra liberal climber scum.
Here Comes Super Jody!!!!! Complete With Breast Plate, Crotch Guard and Cape!
|
|
Wade Icey
climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 08:36pm PT
|
Evolutionary scholars at the Digital Deli today announced the discovery of the elusive missing link.
" This is the proof that we've been searching for. And it was right here under our noses all the time." said Digital Deli spokesperson Trad Alpworthy. To everyone's surprise the link is actually a living specimen.
Said Alpworthy; " Four years of careful observation have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no god, and as an extra bonus, provided the answer to the age old question what do you get when you cross an ape and an idiot?"
visit http://www.sketchgarden.com/launch.html to view the id...missing link.
Glad that's settled,
Wade
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 09:22pm PT
|
There are limitations to what the fossil record can tell you. The record shows the time dependence of identifiable species and is but one piece of the puzzle. How can we understand the origin of the species (the title of Darwin's book) in the midst of the evidence. What the fossil record shows us is the fact that there have been many species, now extinct, that it is possible to group the observed species into hierarchies. The groupings are based on identifiable similarities among individuals.
How could this be?
We now know that the physical attibutes of living things on earth are due to the expression of the genetic machinery. That the compliment of genes carried by an organism define, physically, the organism. We also have an idea of the variation in the genetic material, and the rate at which the genetic material can change. We also know that the genetic material available in a population of organisms can be selected based on survivability of organisms, those that can reproduce pass on their genes. Physical function can convey an advantage for the organism to survive. Thus, a very simple mechanism exists for natural selection. And its precepts can be tested, and have been tested.
A theory exists which explains the vast majority of the observed facts of naturalists and biologists, the theory of evolution.
Do not think of the fossil record as "evidence" that evolution is true, think of it instead as something which is consistent with what the theory would predict. In fact, most scientists would agree that you can only prove something wrong (which is part of the scientific method), not that you can prove something right.
Also, natural selection is not driven by anyting but random chance. There is no "choice" made by the genes, no strategy to survive. This is another beautiful aspect to the theory, the choices are made based on an organism's ability to survive and pass genes along... but there is no individual choice made here, it happens in a "neutral" manner. So bacteria could be considered more successful then humans, they are the majority of biomass on the planet... if your point of view is from the DNA, then the more of it around the more successful... and that is the point of evolution, not to make something better.
My main problem with "intelligent design" is that there is no way to prove it wrong. In that sense it is not science, and should not be taught in a science class, it violates the precepts of science. Fine for class on religion, however.
And Dirtbag, I think science should be taught at a sophisticated enough level so that the "law of universal gravitation" should be taught as the "theory of gravity", with all of the wonderful caveats described and explored.
Finally, I have not quoted authority (even Einstein!) because science is a very un-authoritarian field of study. We believe that the ultimate authority is nature, and that is why experimentation and observation is so central to the scientific method.
My faith rests with my belief that we can understand the physical world through the scientific method. It is, I believe, my only faith.
|
|
anachronism
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 09:29pm PT
|
dufas, I think you read my post wrong. I assumed he does want to be in the ring. We're on the same page there, bro....
rock on...
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 09:41pm PT
|
Crotch, you bring up a good point. I think, for clarification purposes, using family instead of species would be more appropriate, since, like you say, it is all very arbitrary. I am saying that a dog will always be a dog(canine) and a cat will always be a cat(feline) and there has never been macro-evolution between the two, etc.
You're right, classification is very arbitrary. In the last few decades, the number of bird "species" has gone from about 27,000 to about 8,000, not because of extinction, but because of re-classification.
|
|
dirtbag
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 10:27pm PT
|
Actually Jody, the only classification with biological meaning is species (i.e., the bioligcal species concept ("BCS")). Labeling a group of species a genus, family, or any of the larger classifications is arbitrary (as long as their evolutionary relationships are respected). Why is the BCS important? One reason is that if species no longer interbreed, they will eventually diverge in other characters, too. Your point about macroevolution has been addressed, more or less, above.
The number of bird species has not been reduced from 27,000 to 8,000. There has been some shuffling of bird classifications, but the number isn't nearly this large. I used to work with birds so I know a little about this. This shuffling has occurred not because the concept of species is necessarily flawed but because more is learned about the biology of particular species and their breeding patterns.
Finally, although most of us disagree with Jody, let's be at least somewhat civil.
|
|
Thom
Trad climber
South Orange County, CA
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2004 - 10:54pm PT
|
I AM GOD
In the study of biblical numerology, the number 1 represents God; the number 2 represents an established fact; the number 3 represents completeness; the number 6 is the number of man; and the number 7 represent spiritual perfection. Now follow closely children...
I was born 7-7-61
two 7's: established spiritual perfection.
the numbers 6 and 1 together (in that order): man and God as one.
The numbers 6 and 1 added together equal 7 creating a third 7 thereby presenting complete spiritual perfection in the form of one being, manifested as God in the human form (6+1), which has been established by the first two 7's.
I am watching...be very careful...
I AM GOD
|
|
can't say
Social climber
Pasadena CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 11:18pm PT
|
just remember that god to a dyslexic is a dog...my favorite beings on this rock
|
|
Jody
Mountain climber
CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 17, 2004 - 11:48pm PT
|
Okay then, so we are talking about the same thing, wouldn't you call a dog a species of the canine family? Personally, it doesn't matter to me what you call it, as long as we are talking about the same thing. The way I understand it, the species classification is also very arbitrary.
The example given above with the salamander, I am saying that the beginning and end result is still a salamander, even though it might have undergone some changes/adaptations, etc. The fruit fly example, it may have developed a four-winged variety, but it is still a fruit fly. It doesn't go from a fruit fly to a common house fly, and the salamander doesn't go from a salamander to a blue-bellied lizard. So, what do we call those examples?
|
|
maculated
Trad climber
San Luis Obispo, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 02:04am PT
|
Sigh . . . if it could be proved one way or another, there wouldn't be a debate, would there?
Read Story of B by Daniel Quinn. Discuss.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 18, 2004 - 11:48am PT
|
jody-
your comments about dogs evolving into cats mirror tired and unimaginative objections of creationists who are relying on the incomplete fossil record as a foundation for their stance against evolution.
how is it that you can enter a "debate" and pretend to seek "proof" in some fashion that does not exist?
you are seeking something to challenge your faith in god?
perhaps it is only the teachings of the humans that you have chosen to listen to that needs to be challenged, there are far more inconsistencies in what you preach and support than there are in what you reject.
EDIT
(you say you want to know what is so annoying about creationism? i will tell you...)
evolution itself doesn't have to conflict w/ religious beliefs, only interpretations of biblical text. why couldn't some creator have endowed upon all life the ability to adapt to it's own surroundings? why can't all the complexity and awesome beauty of the natural world be something that we all appreciate together, and seek to understand together?
the answer, my friend, is a simple one.
your belief in one literal interpretation or another of the bible conflicts w/ conclusions that various scientific observations may logically lead a thinking person toward, and so you summarily reject them to protect yourself from the need to examine those interpretations (interpretations of others that you have chosen to accept).
instead of including your own religious beliefs and their contexts within the conversation, you cling to your faith and parade a succession of BS that doesn't meet any widely accepted threshhold of the scientific community (other tennets of actual "science" include the processes of peer review and the concept of repeatable observation), and you follow in the proud historical tradition of other scholars of faith who passed themselves off as men of science, but who have long assisted and backed the institutional resistance of the ever powerful catholic church to considering now commonly accepted truths such as the earth being round and the planets revolving around the sun, keep in mind that such concepts once threatened the status quo...
what is different today is that we don't risk our lives and/or our careers by rejecting the churches side of the story, but you choose to try to debate the science on your own terms, terms that the rest of the world finds quite ridiculous; it's as if you are playing kickball on the street w/ the neighborhood kids, and saying you should get as much time as you want to get to 1st base, regardless of how far you kick the ball.
no wonder people make fun of you-
no wonder no one wants to play.
it's not your faith in god, it's your faith in what someone else is telling you or has taught you that god says... the two are not the same.
|
|
crotch
climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 01:00pm PT
|
Jody,
Ensatina escholtzii represents a system where divergence is happening. I don't know anyone who would suggest that a dog will become a cat. Can you please directly cite where such a thing has been stated or show how natural selection implies that dogs will become cats or that salamanders will become lizards or something similar.
Further, I never meant to suggest that species was an arbitrary classification, rather that the levels above it tend to be, and may be better shown as nodes on a tree than rigid levels. As Dirt Bag suggested, the least arbitrary classification of organisms is at the species level. I would suggest reading some of Kevin de Queiroz's papers if you are truly interested (which I somehow doubt) in how biologists currently approach taxonomy. I think he's probably on the cutting edge of defining the fundamental level of biological units. Any summary I could give would be incredibly flawed. http://www.si.edu/ofg/Staffhp/deQueirozK.htm
Perhaps we can take a step back and from the theory of the species concept for a second and focus on something more concrete. Jody, do you believe that DNA can be used to accurately determine paternity?
|
|
David
Trad climber
San Rafael, CA
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 01:19pm PT
|
You realize of course that this is endless. One can poke holes in any accepted theory of science.
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
|
|
10b4me
Trad climber
Bishop(hopefully)
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 18, 2004 - 01:31pm PT
|
nothing is a given. however, seeing as how I'm a card carrying agnostic, I tend to believe in the big E.
to all of you that don't believe in evolution, climbing the Evolution traverse is strictly verboten.
|
|
Irisharehere
Trad climber
Gunks
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 03:04pm PT
|
From the http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html site.......
I was having a good chuckle at the site, until I came to the winner of second place, at the middle school level............scary stuff!
Winner of second place, at the Middle School level
Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
SF Bay Area
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 18, 2004 - 03:15pm PT
|
and this is also from the that site (http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html);:
Evolutionism Propaganda (9/26/2001)
Examples of how Evolutionists spread their false doctrines using PBS, children's programming, and the Apple Macintosh.
links to this:
Apple Macintosh:
Hypnotically encased iMacs trick unsuspecting computer users into accepting Darwinism However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values"2. But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple3 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness4.
This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to Jesus Christ!
Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.
that is SWEET!
hey jody, here is a short quiz:
can you tell me where the "propoganda" is?
(hint: this is NOT a trick question...)
it's actually quite analagous to the taliban or any other fundamentalist philosophy. when gW says "they hate us because they hate our values and our way of life", the truest part of that statement is that many religious fundamentalists are willing to go to great lengths to exclude modern culture and its many advancements and changes (some good and some perhaps not) from encouraging people to "think different than (their) ... upbringing, to reject all the values that (they) have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord"
|
|
dirtbag
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 03:19pm PT
|
That's pretty funny, but I hope those nitwits aren't arming themselves.
|
|
Forest
Trad climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Feb 18, 2004 - 03:37pm PT
|
I suppose that now is a good time to point out that I am an employee of Apple Computer, Inc. :-)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!