 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Biology / Paleontology / August 2005TOBS:Evolution theory evolving?
All, In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the content moderation filter of T.O. but which have been discussed decently in other forums, The question has arise abotu speciation from and evoltuionist point of view, and life reproducing among it kind without intervention. What is a Kind? where is the Manpanzee? Why do certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though their physical appearenace is identical, but their genetic make up is slightly off? Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions: are they right? you decide. http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050806_learnfrm.htm comments? > All, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > comments? I leave the ONE TRUTH to theologists. For myself, I see no real conflict between this idea and the general idea of evolution. Steve  SignatureMark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the > content moderation filter of T.O. What "content moderation filter?" SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org -------------------------------------------------- "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton > > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the > > content moderation filter of T.O. > > What "content moderation filter?" "The filter that cutoff the charter specified 4 groups to 2 if ARJW and SAP is in the header simply because it is a jab thread... that content moderation filter" >> > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the >> > content moderation filter of T.O. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > SAP is in the header simply because it is a jab thread... that content > moderation filter" You mean they had the nerve to do something about your trolling the group eh? SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org -------------------------------------------------- "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton > >> > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under the > >> > content moderation filter of T.O. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You mean they had the nerve to do something about your trolling the group > eh? If they had the nerve, they contradict my argument with sound reasoning, not censorship. >> >> > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under >> >> > the content moderation filter of T.O. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If they had the nerve, they contradict my argument with sound reasoning, > not censorship. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Face it, you're a troll. Nothing more... SignatureMark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org -------------------------------------------------- "Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton > >> >> > In another thread, and many other topics, which would fall under > >> >> > the content moderation filter of T.O. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Face it, you're a troll. Nothing more... If that the case in in your pea-sized brain, that would make you a troll enabler. Since have not yet seen any worthy remark from you on the subject in the header. > All, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and evoltuionist point of view, and life reproducing among it kind > without intervention. What is a Kind? Real biologists don't use the word kind as a technical term, it has no meaning in biology. What is a kind in creationist circles? > where is the Manpanzee? Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years ago, that has since become extinct. > Why do > certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though > their physical appearenace is identical, but their genetic make up is > slightly off? I don't know and can't be bothered to look it up. It could be that the populations have become isolated quite recently - by a road perhaps. If the two populations are seperated as you imply, then there is no selective advantage in them developing distinctive markings, because there is no danger of individuals of the two species trying to mate. In that case the sole selction pressure would be predation; either camouflage or if the frogs are poisonous, warning. If you want a better answer, you'll have to give me more details, so I can research it. > Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions: > are they right? you decide. > > http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050806_learnfrm.htm > > comments? I found the article quite interesting, I have read similar things in New Scientist, including the cyclid fishes of Lake Victoria. DNA studies of these fish show that the various species have a recent common ancestor (I don't remember the figures), yet are widely different in terms of coluration and feeding habits. It's hard to imagine geographical seperation happening in a lake, so it's a bit of a puzzle... for some anyway. Personally, I never felt allopatric speciation was the complete answer and have taken flak for it. Nature is extraordinarily subtle - a fact which Darwin understood well - and it's easy to draw false distinctions. In answer to your subject line, yes evolutionary theory is evolving. Science is not a fixed body of doctrine in the way you pretend your religious beliefs are, it is an ongoing investigation of our world, where the understanding grows ith time. This is why zealots' representation of scientists as being doctrinal is so crass, you only need to look at the reception to quantum, relativity and evolutionary theories to see that science is progressive and not afraid of change, like religion. This is why I like to paraphrase Shakespeare in asking fundies why should I on this fair mountain, leave to feed and batten on your moor? I have understanding that enriches what I experience every moment of the day. Why would I want to join a group who would have me abandon that understanding and why would I be happy that such narrow-minded people have influence? (-: Ian :-) > > All, > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What is a kind in creationist circles? Genus that without intervention will stick to reproducing with it own, with other intervention. There was a Book that Orson Scott wrote in his Ender series about a world, that to survive a plague could only reproduce with other species, for example a mammal would be a tree in its adulthood, etc. > > where is the Manpanzee? > > Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor some five million years > ago, that has since become extinct. My refrence to manpanzee had to do with human-bonobo hybrid. Some biologist believe this could work. Other claim it is unethical. Yet I see no complaints when human braincells are breeded into sheep brains by bioengineers... scientific hypocrasy? > > Why do > > certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > If you want a better answer, you'll have to give me more details, so I > can research it. talk to lenny flanks on TO, or look up his website, I think he is into herps, and use this argument to define the term species. > > Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions: > > are they right? you decide. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > (-: Ian :-) true. >All, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and evoltuionist point of view, and life reproducing among it kind >without intervention. What is a Kind? Kind is a creationist term, not a biological one. > where is the Manpanzee? As you know humans are closer genetically to chimps than horses are to donkeys. It may well be that we could produce some kind of viable offspring. I would consider any such experiment immoral. >Why do >certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though >their physical appearenace is identical, but their genetic make up is >slightly off? Song is a likely candidate but time of day/year is another. Scent is less likely since I think that frogs have a poor sense of smell. >Here is a website on scientists trying to answer such questions: >are they right? you decide. > >http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050806_learnfrm.htm > >comments? It is far less than the article implies. Speciation is not as mysterious as the article suggests. In fact, we have many answers to the question, the current issue is which method of speciation is more common. It is also well know that behavior factors into species recognition and species recognition is an important part of speciation. If some of the behaviors are learned, then that can help differentiate two populations. Those populations could then diverge. The article points out that this is not yet observed, just proposed. BTW, the site is very ugly and looks like an attempt to sensationalize science. For example, an article on reading an EEG is presented as mind reading. It looks like a site done by National Enquirer folks who have to keep to the facts but stay with their old style. SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > On 13 Aug 2005 05:42:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Javriol" > > As you know humans are closer genetically to chimps than horses are to > donkeys. It may well be that we could produce some kind of viable > offspring. I would consider any such experiment immoral. Why? do you consider bioengineered shep with human braincells immoral? Beside, there is no morality in science. > >Why do > >certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > -- > Matt Silberstein Have you verify the background of world science? >> On 13 Aug 2005 05:42:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Javriol" >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Why? do you consider bioengineered shep with human braincells immoral? I would have to know a bit more to judge, but cells are not the same thing as a person. I am not an essentialist, I can distinguish between a few cells and a person. >Beside, there is no morality in science. Nope. Try to understand the difference here. If a calculation says that a rock tossed a certain way will break certain things, that is not a moral statement. If a calculation says that acting a certain way will lead to X dead people, that is not a moral statement. Saying I am going to toss the rock to see if the calculation is correct can be a moral statement. (A moral statement does not mean something is right, but rather that something can be morally right or morally wrong.) To put it more concretely, saying that populations of organisms evolve is not a moral statement, it is just an accurate statement about biology. Saying that one aspect of evolution is difference between who reproduces and who does not is not a moral statement, it is just an accurate statement about biology. But saying I am going to help/prevent those organisms reproduce, that can be a moral statement. My comment on chimp and human genetics was not a moral statement, proposing that we check it to see what happens is a moral statement. And to make that quite clear, it is *immoral*. >> >Why do >> >certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> mind reading. It looks like a site done by National Enquirer folks who >> have to keep to the facts but stay with their old style. >Have you verify the background of world science? Only a touch. The little I looked at was as I described, they seem to take real material and sensationalize it. SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > >Beside, there is no morality in science. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > proposing that we check it to see what happens is a moral statement. > And to make that quite clear, it is *immoral*. Define Morals for the rest of us... >> >Beside, there is no morality in science. >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Define Morals for the rest of us... It is important to distinguish between the category of morality and the determination of the morality of a particular decision or at. The category morality is the concern for right and wrong. Given actions or decisions are either moral or not depending on some set of standards. I am not going to get into the discussion of whether standards come from or who make the determination or what is right or wrong, those are all extraneous to this question. *I* assert, based entirely on my own authority, that an experiment to cross a human with a chimp is immoral. The question of whether or not to do this is one open to judgment and I have no problem with stating my determination on that. A statement about the result, if there was one, would not be a moral claim. For example, it is not a moral claim to say that tens of thousands of people died in the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. The bombing itself is an act subject to moral determination. Saying populations evolve is like saying rocks fall down, it is a statement about the Universe, not about right and wrong. Saying that organisms dying is part of evolution is not a statement about the morality of evolution. IMHO we can only apply moral standards to humans (and, if they exist, to g(G)od(s) ), not to rocks, to wind, to gravity, etc. Natural Selection is an aspect of nature, just like gravity, it is neither morally right nor morally wrong, it just is an accurate description of what happens in the world. SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers > >Define Morals for the rest of us... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > *I* assert, based entirely on my own authority, that an experiment to > cross a human with a chimp is immoral. So, you conclude that you set the standards of morality? > The question of whether or not > to do this is one open to judgment and I have no problem with stating [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hiroshima. The bombing itself is an act subject to moral > determination. was the bombing moral? > Saying populations evolve is like saying rocks fall down, it is a > statement about the Universe, not about right and wrong. Saying that > organisms dying is part of evolution is not a statement about the > morality of evolution. If I made the statement that rape is part of evolution, which I could back up by scientific data. would this be a moral or immoral statement? >> >Define Morals for the rest of us... >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >So, you conclude that you set the standards of morality? Of course not. I apply my standards, that says nothing of where they come from. I asserted my authority to *limit* my statement, not expand it. You or I can certainly pass judgment *claiming* it comes from g(G)od(s), that does not make it so. Regardless of whether or not any g(G)od(s) gave me the standards or agree with my judgment, all I have is my own viewpoint. >> The question of whether or not >> to do this is one open to judgment and I have no problem with stating [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >was the bombing moral? A different issue and I am not about to get involved with that digression. I have discussed it elsewhere and if you find one of those threads and comment, and I see the comment, I will continue the discussion. But in this thread it is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is that a description of the bombing (or nuclear reactions or gravity) is distinct from a discussion of whether or not the act was moral. We need to know the relevant science in order to judge the actions, just like we need to know where someone thought a rock was going to land in order to judge the morality of throwing the rock. >> Saying populations evolve is like saying rocks fall down, it is a >> statement about the Universe, not about right and wrong. Saying that >> organisms dying is part of evolution is not a statement about the >> morality of evolution. >If I made the statement that rape is part of evolution, which I could >back up by scientific data. would this be a moral or immoral statement? The statement is too vague and it quite deliberately inflammatory. There is a fly, the name escapes me, that uses homosexual rape as part of its reproductive strategy. The male flies plug up the female reproductive track after mating. So some males "rape" (it is not clear that the term is all that applicable to flies, I admit, but let's allow it for now) other males and deposit their sperm in the males reproductive track. When the raped male then mates with female the rapers sperm is deposited. Rather horrendous from our POV and we would consider any similar human actions horribly immoral. Describing this does not signal approval. Do humans rape? Sure. Is there enough rape that it plays a significant role in human evolution? I don't know, but there is certainly enough rape associated with warfare that it plays some kind of role. Does study of this and acknowledgment of this imply approval of the rape? Not at all. In fact, that we acknowledge evolution in general does not mean we approve of it. I no more approve (in a moral sense) of evolution than I approve of gravity. It just is. You have tried many times to associate rape and those who assert that evolution occurs. You seem to think that acknowledging evolution means morally approving of each and every evolutionary act. Again, that is no more true that acknowledging gravity means approval of each thing thrown. Forget rape, extinction is a major part of evolution. And extinction makes me very sad. I even find many humans quite immoral for their actions that lead to extinction. (I happen to think that people have a moral duty to those with less power, even to non-humans with less power.) My acknowledgment of evolution does not mean I therefore approve of the extinction. SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers >>On 13 Aug 2005 05:42:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Javriol" >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why? do you consider bioengineered shep with human braincells immoral? No. > Beside, there is no morality in science. Yes. Morality is an artificial construct created by humans, used as a certain way of acting, created by humans as a means to keep the race advancing. If sheep with human brain cells advances the race, then it would be immoral *NOT* to genetically engineer the sheep. Either way, though, the actual act of genetically engineering sheep with human braincells is amoral. How we view the act, however... >>>Why do >>>certain species of tree frogs in Jersey don't interbreed even though [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Have you verify the background of world science? I have. Signature**************************************************** * DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 * *--------------------------------------------------* * "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, * * the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they * * have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke * **************************************************** > > Why? do you consider bioengineered shep with human braincells immoral? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Either way, though, the actual act of genetically engineering sheep with > human braincells is amoral. How we view the act, however... Then you bleive that producing a Manpanzee would be beneficial. How about as a tool to fight terrorism? >> > Why? do you consider bioengineered shep with human braincells immoral? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> Either way, though, the actual act of genetically engineering sheep with >> human braincells is amoral. How we view the act, however... I think you have misunderstood Jabs. (BTW, is Javriol your actual preferred spelling?) and the notion of moral judgment. How we view the act is not, itself, a moral act. How we view the act is how we determine the morality. So it is proper to say the act is moral or the act is immoral. That said, I disagree with you. "Advancing" the race is not a simple thing, you have to consider several other factors. If you are simply growing some pancreas cells, for instance, to make insulin, then there is little problem. But brain cells are closer to what we consider human. Again, growing a small set of cells is probably not a problem, but growing enough to start "working" causes a dilemma for me. I would want to know more about the proposal before passing judgment. >Then you bleive that producing a Manpanzee would be beneficial. How >about as a tool to fight terrorism? No, that does not necessarily follow. I think that DanielSan may well be more likely to approve of that than I would (as I said, I find the idea absolutely wrong), but it is not at all the same situation. Daniel seems to think that anything that "advances" the race is moral, but I am not sure that is a useful concept. That is, "advance" is so poorly defined that he likely has some other set of moral standards behind it. But so what if someone think that a Manpanzee is moral? What does that prove to you? I think that it is better to do that than to eat chimps, but both are wrong. What is your actual point with this Manpanzee? SignatureMatt Silberstein Well ya see, Norm, it's like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. Cliff on Cheers |
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.