Well, consider Cholera. Here is a bacteria that is constantly adapting and becoming more lethal to humans and harder to treat. If there is an intelligent designer, he must really hate us.
3 characters
Well, consider Cholera. Here is a bacteria that is constantly adapting and becoming more lethal to humans and harder to treat. If there is an intelligent designer, he must really hate us.
I asked you several times to speak to the actual content of the study you cited. You have been dodging that.what open dialog am i dodging?
No, what I said said is that you helped me understand the war on science. I have learned more about how denialists think and the basis for their war. The theory stands undisturbed by that war. What's suffering is the effects of propaganda on the congregations, and the disturbances in the state assemblies and courthouses, where some of the war is waged. Public policy suffers. As for god, god is irrelevant to science, except as reminder of the ages when superstition and myth ran roughshod over science, and as a cautionary tale to students who are only now discovering the creation myth. I don't know what you mean by "your god" since I have no god.that is precisely my intent, to wake your lazy asses up.
follow your own lead, dig deep for the shit, and to be objective.
don't assume EITHER side but instead look for what proves the truth.
fuck your god and fuck your theory, THAT'S the attitude you must take.
Because intelligence doesn't appear until nearly 4 billion years after the fact. And it's not design either. It's a gradual and random winnowing out of local weaknesses, then passing the better genes down by an automaton (meiosis). It's just a fundamental aspect of nature. Besides, the notion of ID is the entirely bogus product of superstitious and - in many cases ignorant - minds.I have a question that probably has nothing to do with where you guys are, but didn't want to spam anywhere. What's wrong with the possibility of "intelligent design"?
i did not read what "science" had to say about the matter.I asked you several times to speak to the actual content of the study you cited. You have been dodging that.
i will not respond to posters that label me as a creationist.
Why don't you just out yourself and your religion?
i did not read what "science" had to say about the matter.
i do not have access to the issue.
i downloaded the material you linked to.
i cannot open anything except the code book.
why attack the messenger?
is that going to make what i presented somehow invalid?
i will be honest.Yes, I also wasn't willing to pay for the material you were seeking from Science, but there is no logical connection between that and the content of the study itself which the authors themselves directly published in PLoS.
the intention of the "sciencedaily" piece was to show that educated people in their field are having problems teaching what they are supposed to be "experts" at.If your intention is to present their study, then go to the study.
yes, i will read the material, BUT with the view it is NOT from a peer reviewed source.Go to the link above.
It's the original essay of the Berkman et al, not a commentary by PLoS.i will be honest.
i am having a hard time in accepting what PLOS would say about this matter.
Again, it's their original work copyrighted by them.dr. ayalas so called retraction for example.
it's a direct result of that.
It's just a summary of Berkman's PLoS article, which delivers a different message than that.the intention of the "sciencedaily" piece was to show that educated people in their field are having problems teaching what they are supposed to be "experts" at.
Berkman surveyed their education and reaches a different conclusion.most probably have bachelors degrees, and a good deal more probably masters.
I am un-brushing-away Berkman's findings about religious motivation.you can not simply brush this away as some kind of "religious motivation".
Not according too Berkman.some could be caused by that, but i believe they are having problems because the evidence just isn't there.
That's not what Berkman says.evidence in this case of verified lab results.
It takes several pages to be scientific about evolution, so to that extent I would have to say that your remark is not very scientific.how scientific is the following?
hey guys, evolution happens, we don't know how it happens but it does"
be honest here.
you mean the Republican War on Science?you speak of "the war on science".
i ask you, who exactly is waging it?
If you mean species evolve through common ancestry, OK.another "scientific" scenario:
we know lifeforms change to produce completely different lifeforms.
If you mean species evolve by way of natural selection, that's a how and a why.we don't know how or why but we know it for a fact.
You will if you read Berkman.no, i don't think religion has as much to do with this as the lack of evidence does.
They know it conflicts with their religious beliefs and they know it conflicts with the religion of the students and their parents. See Berkman.what do these teachers know about evolution in the way of verified lab results?
The short answer is creationism, Republicans, Tea Party, Limbaugh et al and FOX news.the short answer is practically nothing.
It's the authors' original work. If you want to know what they found out, you would have to read it. Peer review is probably moot, since it's been sitting in the public domain for about four years. You might want to ask yourself what a reviewer would be checking.yes, i will read the material, BUT with the view it is NOT from a peer reviewed source.
how scientific is the following?
hey guys, evolution happens, we don't know how it happens but it does"
be honest here.
the links i presented on page 2 this thread throws this entire post into dispute.leopold
First, there is the FACT that evolution has occurred on Earth throughout the history of life as seen in the fossil record and as recorded by all the DNA of all of the lifeforms that exist today. Nothing in biology or paleontology makes sense without taking the fact of evolution into account
We know a good bit about how it occurs, but there is still much to learn. Our THEORIES explaining the FACT of Evolution are always subject to change, revision or outright replacement given new evidence or understanding, but the need for change in our theories to correct errors does not indicate a change in the facts and the trend in our theories is toward greater congruence with reality over time(IE closer to TRUTH(TM)).
Grumpy
which implies what?A new genetic line in blond hair has been discovered in an unlikely place - among the people of Melanesia in the Solomon Islands and Fiji.Source
The magazine Science reports today that scientists now realise that blond hair evolved independently at least twice in human history.
After testing 1209 Solomon Islanders scientists compared the entire genetic makeup of 43 blond and 42 dark-haired islanders.
The two groups, they found, had different versions of a crucial gene, TYRP1, one that coded for a protein involved in pigmentation. Switching one "letter" of genetic code - replacing a "C" with a "T" - meant the difference between dark hair and blond hair. A similar mutation creates blond mice by reducing the melanin content in their fur.
Precisely.which implies what?
that evolution is mutation driven?
Utter bollocks.countless thousands of fruitflies have given their lives to prove that false.
then provide the lab results that prove fruitflys have been mutated into something other than a fruitfly.Utter bollocks.
then provide the lab results that prove fruitflys have been mutated into something other than a fruitfly.
talk about "weasel words"
goulds qoute DOES NOT support "small gradual changes" in regards to lifes diversity.