 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / February 2004evolution or gentic engineering.... a question for zechriel..what happen durring the cambrian?
A question.. is the following a product of evolution or intervention by a superior lifeform? The Sphinx cat, bred from a Canadian mutation, is virtually hairless and has a damaged spine which results in a hopping walk. The crop pigeon is bred with an over-sized crop and absurdly long feathers on its feet. The crop can't be cleaned natur- ally and the bird finds walking difficult. Position canaries are bred to resemble the figures 1 and 7. Parts of their bodies are featherless and their over- stretched tendons mean they shift continually from foot to foot. The munchkin cat has short hind legs and three-inch front legs. It can barely jump, can't groom itself and suffers from premature aging of its long spine. A German breed of lop-eared rabbit has ears as long as its body, making walking difficult. Persian cats are bred to have 'piggy' faces. The nose is little more than a stump. The shar pei, a dog designed in the U.S. from a Chinese strain, is bred for its wrinkles. Mutant goldfish are deliberately bred with large growths on their faces. > A question.. is the following a product of evolution or intervention by a > superior lifeform? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Mutant goldfish are deliberately bred with large growths on > their faces. So what does that tell us? Gene's can be manipulated by natural selection, this has to happen not only but sure for the male and female gene's to come together, and can be further manipulated when we put animals together to breed. There is nobody here that puts us together except people themselfs, if you want to regard us as a superior life form then go ahead i dont care that much. It will still be evolution. -Stranger Stranger <atheism@xs4all.nl> wrote in alt.atheism > jabriol <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message >> A question.. is the following a product of evolution or intervention by a >> superior lifeform? >> Position canaries are bred to resemble the figures 1 and 7. >> Parts of their bodies are featherless and their over- >> stretched tendons mean they shift continually from foot to >> foot. >> Mutant goldfish are deliberately bred with large growths on >> their faces. > So what does that tell us? That people like to play with evolution? > Gene's can be manipulated by natural selection, this has to happen not only > but sure for the male and female gene's to come together, and can be further > manipulated when we put animals together to breed. > There is nobody here that puts us together except people themselfs, if you > want to regard us as a superior life form then go ahead i dont care that > much. It will still be evolution. What's this about position canaries resembling the figures 1 and 7? That's a new one for me.  SignatureElroy Willis EAP Chief Editor and Newshound http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news > A question.. is the following a product of evolution or intervention by a > superior lifeform? <SNIP EXAMPLES> These are all examples of selective breeding, which Darwin called Artificial Selection. They are products of intervention by humans. As to whether humans are superior, well we don't swim as well as fish, even when they do feature facial growths. We don't fly as well as pigeons with enlarged crops and feathery feet; but neither fish or pigeons can make a really good cup of tea and scones are completely beyond their comprehension. It seems that there is no quality of overall superiority, though making a cup of tea must rank high in anyone's list of achievements. If you understood more about life, you'd have reached these conclusions yourself, but then you'd also be a Darwinist. (-: Ian :-) > > A question.. is the following a product of evolution or intervention by a > > superior lifeform? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > These are all examples of selective breeding, which Darwin called > Artificial Selection. They are products of intervention by humans. And how can you besure this was not the case un Human appearrance on the planet.. or anything else biological? > > "jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message > news:<kFQZb.8883843$Id.1480928@news.easynews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And how can you besure this was not the case un Human appearrance on the > planet.. or anything else biological? Why would that be needed? -Stranger > > "jabriol" <jabriol@borijan.org> wrote in message > news:<kFQZb.8883843$Id.1480928@news.easynews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > And how can you besure this was not the case un Human appearrance on the > planet.. or anything else biological? In my judgement, Natural Selection is sufficient. Where you have heredity, you also have Natural Selection, it is inevitable. Scientists have built a scenario, which makes less claim to be the truth than Christianity does, but is far more plausible and doesn't need the intercession of any outside intelligence. I know of no evidence which points solely to a creator being, if there were I would postulate one, but even then I wouldn't accept the Christian god. I would hope my creator would be a wiser being than the vindictive tyrant of the Old Testament. He doesn't desrve to be worshipped. Christians who come to argue on alt.atheism assume that there are just two choices; evolution or creationism. If you knock down evolution then everyone will flock to your door, but no; firstly you won't knock evolution down with anything short of tyranny. Secondly, Christian ethics isn't good enough; there are better ways of being a good person than being Christian. Buddhism, for example will teach you more about right and wrong and do so without insulting your intelligence. People who read widely about philosophy, religion and science, may remain a Christian or Moslem or whatever; but they do mature. They find they can't sustain the monomaniacal zealousy of the Christians who invade alt.atheism and who are trying to discredit evolution by misrepresenting it. They know by experience that no one has all the answers and that it makes no sense to drink wisdom from just one well. Now I have a question for you: Your question seems to imply that your are willing to accept Darwinism, but want to make an exception for Humankind. Why? Regards, (-: Ian :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.