Okay, this might sound a little naive, but why can't they use people who have long prison sentences but are not severely criminal? The data gained concerning space travel could allow these people to contribute to society when otherwise they would just be rotting in a cell.
I say go for it. You could end up in Atlantic City, New Jersey in one of Donald Trump's hotels. You would be New York City and Washington DC about 3 hours away. The cultural experience would be quite remarkable I think.
Then again, you might end up on a riverboat on the Mississippi river having to work in a cramped cubicle below the waterline.
It's just Saint Guinness starting up his brewery in heaven to make the angels tipsy and put ole St. Patty at ease. The clouds & harps must be gettin a'borin up thar.
You been tellin' me you're a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time I've known you
I still don't know what you mean
The weekend at the college
Didn't turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge
I can't understand
First off, I am not a troll. Expressing disagreement is not trolling. I don't often comment although I follow/. regularly.
The article by Michael Torrice of ScienceNOW Daily News states: Many scientists (many of them! lots!) think that the tree evolved these metamorphoses --small, brown, blotchy leaves as seedlings, footlong spears with tiny barbs along the edge as a sapling, and rounded, nondescript green leaves as an adult tree, to avoid moas
The article is stating the tree somehow **knew** that moas were eating on it and so developed a leaf cycle with barbs to thwart the moa bird.
That is ridiculous, that the tree could know such a thing as the type of predator eating on it and develop a countermeasure. That is my issue with this article.
It is also your disagreement with the article, that the tree somehow responded to the actions of a predator. We both agree the science in the article is wrong,
although we hold different views concerning evolution and origins.
You and others here state that the article is wrong about how evolution works, that it is only chance mutation and natural selection that resulted in the lancewood tree devoloping
barbed leaves, that it was not the actions of predators that caused the barbs. By stating such it is then apparent that:
many scientists are wrong about how evolution works, including David Lee a botanist mentioned in the article
ScienceNOW Daily News is in error to produce such an article because their science is wrong
Kevin C. Burns, an evolutionary ecologist(!) is wrong about how evolution works
Kevin C. Burns and his colleagues are wasting their time, and probably New Zealand tax dollars and Victoria University funding,
in conducting research on the issue from starting out with a false premise based on a flawed understanding of evolution.
I understand your explanation as to how the lancewood tree developed barbed leaves. You say it is from mutation and natural selection. That is
a possibility. I don't disagree with it. However, I am convinced God designed the lancewood with enough genetic information to allow for a wide
range of genetic expression so it can have a resonable chance to survive in a changing environment filled with a host of variables such as climate, predation,
and soil type. This includes the genetic information for barbed leaves during a stage in a tree's life cycle.
I start with the premise that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other matter were created by God, and this matter was formed into living creatures including
the lancewood tree. You start with the premise (I assume) that matter has always existed or it popped out of nowhere and it assembled itself on its own into living
things mutating and being natural selected for over a long period of time to explain the species we see today.
You have your view, I have mine. You base your view on your interpretation of the data as do I.
Regardless, I think we can both agree that the ScienceNOW article is scientifically invalid.
No, it is a conclusion derived from the application of common sense --trees do not **know** anything.
That was the most idiotic explain of Evolution I've ever heard
That is because The Theory of Evolution is an idiotic explanation. It is improbable, not logical, and completely ludicrous which this article is just one of many heaped upon many more testifying to that fact. There are just too many of these "lucky mutations" to be attributed to just chance such as spiders able to spin webs in the dark, not needing to be taught or even having to see their handiwork.
From the ScieneNOW article: Many scientists think that the tree evolved these metamorphoses to avoid moas
These "scientists", whoever they are, infer that 1) trees have the ability to know what kind of creature is eating its leaves and 2) trees can modify its genetic code to counter them. That is absolutely absurd. It is a fable.
If all the tree is just the result of random mutations which resulted in barbed leaves then why talk about the tree 'defending itself" and so forth?" Don't these "scientists" know their own definition of evolution? Why didn't they then state that the tree underwent a number of mutations resulting in barbed leaves resulting in the fortutious happenstance that moa birds were prevented from eating all the leaves, or only able to eat some of the leaves."? Why?
And how do we know that the barbs weren't beneficial, providing shelter for moa nestlings or other creatures? For all we know the leaves are indigestible or even poisonous to the moa so the barbs are there to prevent the moa from harming itself.
a new study suggests...
the evidence is speculative...
Suggestive speculation. That's all it is.
How does the tree "know" it is being eaten by a bird, or anything for that matter? How many centuries of getting some leaves stripped off does it take for the plant to say to itself, "Hey, there's a bird --I **know** it is a bird and not an elephant that is eating on me so I'll add some information into my genetic code to grow some spikes to stop it." ?
No, the tree was designed with the information to have spike growth, the purpose (probably) to ensure that every tree does not become defoliated thus ensuring some will survive.
As a stiff-upper-lipper you probably know, America was mainly founded by religious dissenters from the Church of England. They believed the Bible, not the king and certainly not the pope, was the sole spiritual authority as well as THE ONLY acceptable explanation as to how life began. Such beliefs became embedded in the American constitution, the documents forming the foundation of the government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness">
Right there in our founding documents is the declaration that God created us.
This declaration is in conjunction with the first sentence in the bible "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." The bible goes on to
say God created all life and also created humans, both male and female. It does not say how God did this, other than doing so from the dust of the earth.
Enter evolution. It says creatures change over time. Indeed they do, for example, bacteria undergo mutations and genetic recombinations
resulting in different species of bacteria, some with resistance to penicillin, some that can digest previously undigestible substances. This is a proven fact backed up by
enormous amounts of observed data. It is indisputable, just as it is indisputable that trees absorb water and nutrients from its root system, just as it is indisputable that
water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.
In every instance, however, over hundreds of thousands of generations, the bacteria never change into amoebi or amphibians: they remain solely within the bacteria kind. In fact, there is zero evidence for any kind of creature (cat, dog, bird, deer, swine) ever becoming another kind such as reptiles becoming birds. There are supposed transitional forms like tiktaalik that is touted as "proof" that lizards became birds butthis is not any proof at all, just a possible interpretation of a few fossilized bones.
This is not an argument from incredulity, it is an argument from not accepting an impossibility, such as, it is impossible to accept that you donned scuba gear and a pair of feathered wings and flapped yourself up to the moon.
Building upon evolution is the Theory of Evolution. It says since living things can change over time (they can) then man was not created but evolved, over millions of
years, from a simple cell to more complex cells to a snail-like creature to a rodent-like creature to an ape-like ancestor and then to humans. This is in direct contradiction of
what the bible says and why the theory is opposed so vehemently: if the bible is untrue, Christianity is untrue.
Because the Theory of Evolution is not proven (except in the minds of some people), and that there is no evidence that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor only the
speculation and assumption that humans did so, it is therefore unacceptable to have this theory taught as a fact when in truth it is only speculation, a possible explanation
how humans came to be.
If some American institutions and groups of people would stop declaring the Theory of Evolution as fact and place it in its proper position, that is, it is an unobserved,
unproven explanation as to the origins of all the species, then there would be no argument. Mutation? Speciation? Adaptation? There is no problem with such teachings as
they are backed up by observation and testing. Issue is taken when adaptation and mutation are claimed to have resulted in all the life forms we see today, starting from a
single-celled organism changing through millions of years.
The argument really goes further than the debate on origins, because you have to go back to where matter came from and how life arose from that matter. Basically,
either matter has always existed and it moved itself to form living entities, or God has always existed and created matter and forme
You are correct that abiogenesis is not a philosophy on origins. It is a hypothesis, but what a person hypothesizes about tends to mirror one's philosophy concerning life. As I was typing I was thinking about philosophy, because those who espouse abiogenesis tend to hold to the philosophy/worldview that god does not exist.
I understand very well the difference between the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis:
Abiogenesis: the hypothesis/musings/nosepickings about how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.
Theory of Evolution: well gee, if a species can change over time, like a wolf can become a poodle or birds can develop longer beaks then it stands to reason a lizard can become a bird. Why, I bet if that lizard species flaps its arms long enough and thinks hard enough about flying over a couple million years, heck, maybe a billion, and it wishes hard enough, them arms will sprout feathers and its bones will hollow out all on their own and golly gee whaddya know, we got ourselves a bird from a lizard! Change over time it could happen, coulda maybe coulda.
Yes yes I know: gradual changes over millions of years. Whatever. I reject it point blank. Period.
Theory of Evolution (as it pertains to humans): the belief (there is no proof of this --and don't point me to tedious, bloated "peer" reviewed baloney based on the presupposition the theory is true --I'm not reading anymore of that crap as my mind is made up already) that states humans and apes are both descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor has never been found, only imaginative story telling and embellishment based on a few bones.
As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods. You can call the observation of the creation a science, such as studying plant life, but then you should call it Botany, not Creationism.
All that can be said of Creationism is that it is an explanation as to how matter came into existence and how it was formed into material entities like comets, planets, and living creatures. This explanation declares that the proof for the existence of a creator is the fact that matter exists, and that it is formed into arrangements that could not have come about by mindless random processes.
Trying to claim Creationism as science is the same as claiming Abiogenisis as science. Abiogenisis is a philosophy of origins piggy-backed on the tested, observed, documented, and therefore confirmed fact that over time, some creatures lose/have mutated genetic material which alters the appearance and/or life functions of future generations of that species.
One reason it is a good idea to be polite to a policeman is because when you are stopped/detained for whatever reason, the policeman (or policewoman) is acting as on-the-spot justice. That person's decision can mean you get to go home free. If not, you may have to take off from a day of work to go drive around the middle of some cruddy small town an hour away from where you live, drive around that town trying to find a shabby courthouse, then find some place to park, and then wait around next to a line of down-n-outers for 2 hours to hear you have to spend $120 in court costs, or go to jail, or have your license to drive taken away for a month, or anything the judge pulls out of his bottom based on a sliding-scale rule of justice.
If the cop is having a bad day, doesn't like your attitude at the moment, then your infraction of the rules whether slight or definite is based in part on the whim and fancy of the police officer. It doesn't matter if you are innocent or not: you will have to go to court to prove you are innocent of the charge. You might even have to hire a lawyer to help prove that because it is your word against a cop's. Guess who usually wins in that case?
So it is in your best interest to be polite, not really out of fear of the policeman but out of the insane inconvenience of the judicial system which acts sort of like a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on steroids.
Bureau of Open Source Software Technology: 80% of funds received
This bureau will consist of individuals attending seminars in the Bahamas and Hawaii to determine the best Open Source methods. Limo's will of course be required in all travel modes to ensure a comfortable atmosphere when deciding upon Open Source issues.
Office of Environmental Impact of Open Source Technology: 10% of funds received
Office of Open Source Technology Public Awareness: 5% of funds received
Office of Feeling Good about Open Source Technology: 4% of funds received
Open Source Develpment and Implementation: 1% of funds received
Result: Except for the Office of Open Source Technology, everyone will continue using existing vendors because there was no funding available to migrate all the databaes and custom applications to the Open Source format.
It is possible both are true to a slight degree, not so much a grand conspiracy but as a means for a few folks to prosper behind exaggerated claims swallowed by the gullible.
How did this leak out? Lies, all lies! Global Warming is real and true and happening and people are the cause of it.
It is true because I need that Global Warming Grant Money so I can study climate change from a necessity-based laboratory in the Bahamas.
Guess my senator didn't get the word to keep fanning the flames on global warming. Maybe a bigger donation will help, donation size contingent upon the size of the grant money...
Well put and well said. Excellent to point out Linux is a kernel.
As the speculation on Linux continues, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing", I'll keep plinking away using Fedora 10 not giving a whit about someone's delusions.
That's a false dichotomy. Matter could also have been preceded by something else, or exist in a loop
There is no evidence for this. Pre-matter? ??
some theoretical physicists are interested in the issue and who knows what they might come up with.
Yes, who knows what they'll come up with. Meanwhile, I'm not going to wait around putting my faith in their speculations.
what do we mean "has always existed?" I'll take it that you are meaning that your entity is older than the universe.
God transcends time. He has always existed. God's "age" as you put it is infinite. There was never a "time" God did not exist. There will never be a time God does not exist.
However, time started in the big bang, so in order for there to be a "before" we have to have a time frame outside of the universe, for which we have no evidence.
Time as we know it may have started at the big bang. However, regardless of when, we know now that matter is here. It came from somewhere. What time frame it came about is not the question. How it got here is the question. Not one person on this planet who has ever lived or is living knows the beginning of time. Matter either has always existed or it was created.
I see no reason to go along with the assumption that this other time frame exists (indeed if we accept one unevidenced time frame, why not two, or a hundred, or infinitely many?).
And I see no reason not to. I know matter exists. I don't know when time began or of other time periods outside the universe. I can only speculate like everyone else about that. I see matter. It is here. I can only ask where it came from, not when because I cannot go back in time or trace atoms to an origin.
We must assume that this entity has always existed in (at least) this second time frame rather than biting the dust in it right after starting our universal space-time, which I also see no reason to agree to.
Again, God transcends all time frames. God does not "bite the dust." God does not die. You assume God has not always existed or does not exist, I assume he does. The statement cannot be proven or disproven so it has to be taken on faith in our judgment based on our interpretation of the data: matter exists.
You posit it as a single entity--again with no reason to do so. The rest of your post is only apologetics that not only requires these assumptions, but introduces even more with just as little reason.
I assume, and am certain, God exists based on the premise that I know matter exists and matter had to come from somewhere, that it did not move itself some of it becoming living organisms that can see, hear, smell, speak, and reproduce. My whole belief stems from this certainty. The other alternative is God does not exist and matter moved itself and jumbled itself together by accident. That is not an acceptable or logical explanation.
Um....no. Other possibilities: God used to exist. God doesn't exist, yet. God, which one(s)? Loki, Thor, Brahma? All of the above? None? Some combination of the above that ooze out, separate, then merge back together like the blob? Or unknown? Binary choice my ass. The rest of your post is similarly poorly thought out.
The fact is, matter exists. It is here. So where did the matter, the helium and sulfur and so forth come from? Either it has always existed or it was created by something that has always existed, something that preceeded the existence of matter. To say matter popped out of nothing is absurd so isn't considered.
The only other reasonable alternative to matter always existing is an omnipotent and all-powerful being that created matter, the universe, life --everything. It is indeed a binary choice.
God used to exist: God cannot die.
God doesn't exist yet: then matter would have had to preceed God which flies in the face of the evidence: matter is arranged in an intelligent manner, an arrangement that could not possibly have occurred by chance or accident.
As to which name to put to this omnipotent being, I submit to you this: just as a sane, normal father loves his child, God loves his creation. But he does not force us to love him because if he did it would not be love. It has to be a free choice. The only way to discern "which is the true God" is to examine all the claims of who people say God is and compare. I could tell you which one I have discovered to be the true God but my word means nothing. You have to examine the claims yourself. If you don't know why you believe in God, just taking someone else's word for it, that is not good and you have no foundation to stand on.
b0ttle said: I'd really like to know more about your creational beliefs, could you explain it in more details?
Ok, for what it's worth, as one who believes that Creationism better explains life than Evolutionism, I'll give it a whirl.
First, I'll lay some groundwork concerning my conclusion. One's belief in Creationism or Evolutionism is determined by how a person believes concerning the origin of matter: either matter has always existed and always been in motion (as Robert Ingersoll posits) or God has always existed, created matter, and set it in motion.
The existence of God is a binary choice: God exists or God does not exist.
One of these statements is true and one is false. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. It must be one or the other, just as an electrical switch is on or off: either the switch is on or it is off.
So which is it? It must be one or the other. Here is basically the two versions:
Version 1
There is no God. Hydrogen (and all matter for that matter) has always existed. These particles of matter over unfathomable lengths of time moved themselves together, perhaps by magnetism or molecular attraction to form water, proteins, iron, and all manner of molecules which, again over long periods of time, combined to form comets, planets, suns, and eventually a living organism. Over time the information blueprint of this organism (DNA) mutated forming different but similar organisms which changed even further over time. Eventually, blind organisms derived the ability to see, mindless creatures derived the ability to evaluate conditions and make use of what it has seen, and deaf creatures derived the ability to hear. Plants, themselves blind, deaf, and mindless, who have no concept of air currents, structural design, or gravity, formed, by blind, mindless processes aerodynamic seedlings which could disperse in the breeze. Spiders with silk glands (another chance mutation) appeared from the pool of organisms forming and taught themselves to spin webs and somehow imparted this information into its DNA. After so many millions of years of these blueprint changes, organisms becoming more and more complex, these changes accumulated to form a human being, forming at the same time both male and female versions that could come together and produce offspring.
Version 2
God has always existed, has no beginning or ending. This God created all matter, and from this matter God created the universe, setting the magnitude of suns and the spinning of planets. God also created all living things within a short period of time from each other, including humans; both male and female God created them.
Others more intelligent and expressive than myself have put it better than I but this is basically what it comes down to. People have argued for centuries over which is the correct version. I do not pretend to resolve such disputes here other than portray the two options available. Whichever version you choose is a matter of faith because no human has any idea where matter came from. There are only guesses and a consensus of plausible possibilities.
So, is it Creation or Evolution? For me, the evidence for Creation is all around: the earth, the elements, trees, the sun --all of these entities did not pop out of nowhere, hence, they were created.
Rocks do not move themselves. Mindless matter does not accumulate into the fantastic designs with purpose such as a reproductve system or the human mind. Since it is not plausible that random, mindless, chance processes or accidents could result in life as we see today then the only other option is God.
Evolution posits that all life started from a common ancestor (this ancestor arising via abiogenesis) and "evolved" over time via mutations and Natural Selection to the diverse species we see today. This theory cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It is a possible explanation, just as it is possible a cosmic baboon farted life into existence, and many scientist attempt to push round pegs into square holes to try and make the evidence fit with the assumption that the theory is true, but it is not a plausible theory given belief in God.
The only text I cut & pasted was what I provided referring to a failed evolutionary prediction, and part of the text from EvoWiki concerning nested hierarchies. I could not find a direct definition of twin-nested hierarchies so I had to read a lot of long-winded text and put it in a short definition form.
I assure you that what I have written here are all of my own words except what I mentioned above. I do not crib or plagiarize things or parrot other people's thoughts though my thoughts may resemble other people's thoughts. I put things in my own words and stand by what I say.
And fear? I do not live in fear, not of spooks or boogey men and certainly not scientific theories. I live life with a love and appreciation of what God hath created, and I live life with a love for other people. On the whole I am content, I am at peace. Whether the Theory of Evolution is true or not is frankly irrelevant.
And as for ignorance, I do not pretend to claim that I know all things about the Theory of Evolution, and I have not analyzed every little detail which I have not the time nor inclination to do; yet, I have examined it enough to my satisfaction, which I have explained in the previous 2 posts that I am not convinced the Theory of Evolution is the correct conclusion concerning the complexity of life I see around me.
I guess this should be the end of the discussion. You are convinced I am stupid, fearful, and ignorant because I do not accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and I consider you...well...living with a dark materialistic veil before your eyes, as someone wearing a pair of sunglasses with a big face of Darwin painted on the lenses obscuring your view.
In 100 years from now, what you or I believed concerning evolution will not matter a tot really.
My incredulity is indeed legitimate criticism, no different than my incredulity at someone claiming he swam to Mars in scuba gear riding the solar winds on a space surfboard. And I
am not completely ignorant of evolution (I do admit I am not a biologist though). I have studied the Theory of Evolution enough to know it is not true, that the evidence is no
evidence at all only assumption and the shaving of square pegs to fit into round holes.
What is so intelligent about the human knee? It is a fantastic work of design that allows a human to perform a large range of motions such as jumping and squatting;
indeed, without knees we would have to lie down to defecate or do so standing up. As any machine, over time they can wear out if too much a burden is placed upon them
such as repeated damage from playing sports or from obesity.
The eye is also a fantastic design, and I will add: a blind organism could not, under any circustance, create for itself the means to see. For that to happen you would have to
have foreknowledge of light, something a blind organism would not have. This idea going around "the eye is a flawed design" is poppycock. Just because we do not
understand all the why and wherefores of the design do not make it a bad design.
People have back problems mainly because of obesity, injury, old age, lack of exercise, and disease, among others.
Concerning Twin-nested Hierarchy:
As I mentioned, I am not a scientist, but I took your suggestion and read up on this issue at Talk Origins and EvoWiki. (which is why my response to you took some time).
"Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are
mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates
"Twin-Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups are not only similar at the morphological level, they are also similar at the genetic level, such as sharing
the same sequences of RNA.
I have to conclude this does not prove anything other than that similar creatures such as mammals share similar genetic traits, such as the ability to produce milk to nurse its
young. When I see tits on a fish, yeah, maybe I'll take nested-hierarchies as proof of evolution more seriously.
There is great hooting and puffing over the claims that evolution predicts things, but there are many failed predictions of evolutionary theory. One of these failed predictions
relates to the sizes of metazoan genomes:
'At one time it seemed possible that the amount of DNA would be a good measure of complexity (Sneath, 1964), but as genome sizes became known, little correlation was
found with perceived morphological complexity.' Valentine, J.W., Two genomic paths to the evolution of complexity in bodyplans, Paleobiology Ref. 7, p. 513
I still remain unconvinced. Evolution seems to me a bad case of circular reasoning: evolution is true. evolution predicts nested-hieararchies. organisms are arranged in
nested-hieararchies. evolution is true.
Common sense is not a euphamism for cultural prejudices, it is a form of wisdom, which is sound judgment upon a matter based upon honest observation and experience.
Anyway, this kind of stuff has been debated ad infinitum with few if any people changing their minds on the matter. This stuff has been debated for over a hundred years
and I, putting my Prediction Device next to the Evolution Prediction Device, predict the debate will continue even if the government makes it illegal to teach either Creationism
or the Theory of Evolution but instead, it is the great Buddha who did it all with one big fart.
As a non-scientist, this is my understanding of the subject:
The Theory of Evolution is an hypothesis that a small simple organism managed to acquire new information in its genetic code allowing it to gradually change over millions of years, its descendants eventually becoming all the creatures we see today, including humans.
This is not to be confused with evolution which is organisms changing according to a selection or corruption (mutation) of information already within its genetic code, such as
Darwin's finches: genes for short beaks and long beaks in finches is present in its genetic code, the beak which predominates depends on environmental factors such as food
availability.
We know evolution (not the theory) occurs because it is observed, and we have a reasonable amount of knowledge that explain how these changes occur.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is an extrapolation upon evolution saying that since we know organisms can change, sometimes dramatically such as
getting poodles from wolves, it is reasonable to expect an amoeba can, over time, become a tadpole, and can eventually allow an organism to gain the information to sprout
feathers and fly up into the sky.
This is an unproven assertion and is a leap (off a cliff) in logic. Granted, it is a possible explanation, an explanation perfectly acceptable if there are is no god and matter has always existed, or it poofed out of nothing into existence then somehow combined itself over time to form planets and stars and water and just happened to form life from
unlife, somehow.
The only other reasonable alternative is a supreme intelligence, God, who was not created and who has always existed and who arranged all the hydrogen and atomic
particles into their respective categories to form planets, stars, and yes, humans too, and that this God loves his creation just as as parent (a non-dysfunctional one, mind
you) loves his child.
It is my opinion that this Theory is insignificant considering the whole of
biology and is not worth the time to teach in the public schools. It should be relegated to an advanced biology class in college so that a student who then learns about the
theory can more appreciate the details pertaining to it, and can make up his or
her own mind whether God created life or natural processes caused life to happen.
As for me, after looking at the world around me I can only conclude God created all life, for a blind, mindless organism such as a maple tree could never
design for itself an aerodynamic seedling to be dispersed in the breeze. To design such a seedling requires intelligence and a knowledge of wind currents and wing structure. Even Natural Selection must be designed, for to be able to select the better of two options based on the current circumstances you must have intelligence to make such a decision otherwise it is random selection.
Also, consider the spider: it spins its web in the dark, not using its eyes for the task, and it spins the web correctly the first time. Who taught the spider to spin? It has a
brain smaller than a grain of sand, and the mother dies before the spiderling is born so it isn't taugh how to spin. I can only conclude that a high intelligence, with knowledge of structural engineering, among other things, programmed the spider with this knowledge.
You can trot out supposed transitional fossils as "proof" of the Theory, and you can mass-produce from the universities myriads of minutia claiming "it's true! see all these
papers and diagrams!" to try and snowball one into believing it hook, line, and sinker, kind of how lawyers weary an opponent with massive tomes of drivel, but my good
conscious and common sense says it just ain't so, no more than Kipling's "Just So" stories.
My copy of Vista also works well but due to only having a paltry 1 gb of ram I had to disable many graphic features to get reasonable response times. My first few hours with the OS I was just about ready to rip it off the machine I was so mad at the poor performance and ridiculous wait times while the OS figured out what to do.
When an OS sends you a message "Determining amount of time to copy file" and it takes the OS 20 seconds to figure out it only needs a second to copy a 300 byte file, well, I have to conclude the OS is a pile of crap. I had to revert to using the command line to copy files it got so bad, especially copying from a CD. Eventually things sorted themselves out. I don't know whether it was because I turned off some features or the OS "learned" how to copy files in a reasonable time. I don't know.
My latest annoyance with the OS is that Vista rebooted itself to install an update it auto-downloaded hours before. The reboot occurred without informing me so I was knocked out of the app I was using and I lost all current data. Luckily, it wasn't important data but still, I don't trust this OS at all and won't be using it to do important stuff. I got a Vista machine mainly for use as a gaming console so I'll keep using an older PC running openBSD for email/web/documents. Later, I'll probably make the Vista machine dual-boot.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay, this might sound a little naive, but why can't they use people who have long prison sentences but are not severely criminal? The data gained concerning space travel could allow these people to contribute to society when otherwise they would just be rotting in a cell.
I say go for it. You could end up in Atlantic City, New Jersey in one of Donald Trump's hotels. You would be New York City and Washington DC about 3 hours away. The cultural experience would be quite remarkable I think. Then again, you might end up on a riverboat on the Mississippi river having to work in a cramped cubicle below the waterline.
It's just Saint Guinness starting up his brewery in heaven to make the angels tipsy and put ole St. Patty at ease. The clouds & harps must be gettin a'borin up thar.
This made me laugh.
They should also have examined the happiness receptors in the brain. There really could be something to the phrase "fat, dumb, & happy".
You been tellin' me you're a genius
Since you were seventeen
In all the time I've known you
I still don't know what you mean
The weekend at the college
Didn't turn out like you planned
The things that pass for knowledge
I can't understand
--Reelin' In the Years by Steely Dan
First off, I am not a troll. Expressing disagreement is not trolling. I don't often comment although I follow /. regularly.
The article by Michael Torrice of ScienceNOW Daily News states: Many scientists (many of them! lots!) think that the tree evolved these metamorphoses --small, brown, blotchy leaves as seedlings, footlong spears with tiny barbs along the edge as a sapling, and rounded, nondescript green leaves as an adult tree, to avoid moas
The article is stating the tree somehow **knew** that moas were eating on it and so developed a leaf cycle with barbs to thwart the moa bird. That is ridiculous, that the tree could know such a thing as the type of predator eating on it and develop a countermeasure. That is my issue with this article.
It is also your disagreement with the article, that the tree somehow responded to the actions of a predator. We both agree the science in the article is wrong, although we hold different views concerning evolution and origins.
You and others here state that the article is wrong about how evolution works, that it is only chance mutation and natural selection that resulted in the lancewood tree devoloping barbed leaves, that it was not the actions of predators that caused the barbs. By stating such it is then apparent that:
I understand your explanation as to how the lancewood tree developed barbed leaves. You say it is from mutation and natural selection. That is a possibility. I don't disagree with it. However, I am convinced God designed the lancewood with enough genetic information to allow for a wide range of genetic expression so it can have a resonable chance to survive in a changing environment filled with a host of variables such as climate, predation, and soil type. This includes the genetic information for barbed leaves during a stage in a tree's life cycle.
I start with the premise that carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and other matter were created by God, and this matter was formed into living creatures including the lancewood tree. You start with the premise (I assume) that matter has always existed or it popped out of nowhere and it assembled itself on its own into living things mutating and being natural selected for over a long period of time to explain the species we see today.
You have your view, I have mine. You base your view on your interpretation of the data as do I. Regardless, I think we can both agree that the ScienceNOW article is scientifically invalid.
Did you learn that in bible-thumper class.
No, it is a conclusion derived from the application of common sense --trees do not **know** anything.
That was the most idiotic explain of Evolution I've ever heard
That is because The Theory of Evolution is an idiotic explanation. It is improbable, not logical, and completely ludicrous which this article is just one of many heaped upon many more testifying to that fact. There are just too many of these "lucky mutations" to be attributed to just chance such as spiders able to spin webs in the dark, not needing to be taught or even having to see their handiwork.
From the ScieneNOW article: Many scientists think that the tree evolved these metamorphoses to avoid moas
These "scientists", whoever they are, infer that 1) trees have the ability to know what kind of creature is eating its leaves and 2) trees can modify its genetic code to counter them. That is absolutely absurd. It is a fable.
If all the tree is just the result of random mutations which resulted in barbed leaves then why talk about the tree 'defending itself" and so forth?" Don't these "scientists" know their own definition of evolution? Why didn't they then state that the tree underwent a number of mutations resulting in barbed leaves resulting in the fortutious happenstance that moa birds were prevented from eating all the leaves, or only able to eat some of the leaves."? Why?
And how do we know that the barbs weren't beneficial, providing shelter for moa nestlings or other creatures? For all we know the leaves are indigestible or even poisonous to the moa so the barbs are there to prevent the moa from harming itself.
a new study suggests... the evidence is speculative...
Suggestive speculation. That's all it is.
How does the tree "know" it is being eaten by a bird, or anything for that matter? How many centuries of getting some leaves stripped off does it take for the plant to say to itself, "Hey, there's a bird --I **know** it is a bird and not an elephant that is eating on me so I'll add some information into my genetic code to grow some spikes to stop it." ?
No, the tree was designed with the information to have spike growth, the purpose (probably) to ensure that every tree does not become defoliated thus ensuring some will survive.
As a stiff-upper-lipper you probably know, America was mainly founded by religious dissenters from the Church of England. They believed the Bible, not the king and certainly not the pope, was the sole spiritual authority as well as THE ONLY acceptable explanation as to how life began. Such beliefs became embedded in the American constitution, the documents forming the foundation of the government:
Right there in our founding documents is the declaration that God created us.
This declaration is in conjunction with the first sentence in the bible "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." The bible goes on to say God created all life and also created humans, both male and female. It does not say how God did this, other than doing so from the dust of the earth.
Enter evolution. It says creatures change over time. Indeed they do, for example, bacteria undergo mutations and genetic recombinations resulting in different species of bacteria, some with resistance to penicillin, some that can digest previously undigestible substances. This is a proven fact backed up by enormous amounts of observed data. It is indisputable, just as it is indisputable that trees absorb water and nutrients from its root system, just as it is indisputable that water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius.
In every instance, however, over hundreds of thousands of generations, the bacteria never change into amoebi or amphibians: they remain solely within the bacteria kind. In fact, there is zero evidence for any kind of creature (cat, dog, bird, deer, swine) ever becoming another kind such as reptiles becoming birds. There are supposed transitional forms like tiktaalik that is touted as "proof" that lizards became birds butthis is not any proof at all, just a possible interpretation of a few fossilized bones.
This is not an argument from incredulity, it is an argument from not accepting an impossibility, such as, it is impossible to accept that you donned scuba gear and a pair of feathered wings and flapped yourself up to the moon.
Building upon evolution is the Theory of Evolution. It says since living things can change over time (they can) then man was not created but evolved, over millions of years, from a simple cell to more complex cells to a snail-like creature to a rodent-like creature to an ape-like ancestor and then to humans. This is in direct contradiction of what the bible says and why the theory is opposed so vehemently: if the bible is untrue, Christianity is untrue.
Because the Theory of Evolution is not proven (except in the minds of some people), and that there is no evidence that humans evolved from an apelike ancestor only the speculation and assumption that humans did so, it is therefore unacceptable to have this theory taught as a fact when in truth it is only speculation, a possible explanation how humans came to be.
If some American institutions and groups of people would stop declaring the Theory of Evolution as fact and place it in its proper position, that is, it is an unobserved, unproven explanation as to the origins of all the species, then there would be no argument. Mutation? Speciation? Adaptation? There is no problem with such teachings as they are backed up by observation and testing. Issue is taken when adaptation and mutation are claimed to have resulted in all the life forms we see today, starting from a single-celled organism changing through millions of years.
The argument really goes further than the debate on origins, because you have to go back to where matter came from and how life arose from that matter. Basically, either matter has always existed and it moved itself to form living entities, or God has always existed and created matter and forme
You are correct that abiogenesis is not a philosophy on origins. It is a hypothesis, but what a person hypothesizes about tends to mirror one's philosophy concerning life. As I was typing I was thinking about philosophy, because those who espouse abiogenesis tend to hold to the philosophy/worldview that god does not exist.
I understand very well the difference between the Theory of Evolution and Abiogenesis:
Abiogenesis: the hypothesis/musings/nosepickings about how life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter.
Theory of Evolution: well gee, if a species can change over time, like a wolf can become a poodle or birds can develop longer beaks then it stands to reason a lizard can become a bird. Why, I bet if that lizard species flaps its arms long enough and thinks hard enough about flying over a couple million years, heck, maybe a billion, and it wishes hard enough, them arms will sprout feathers and its bones will hollow out all on their own and golly gee whaddya know, we got ourselves a bird from a lizard! Change over time it could happen, coulda maybe coulda.
Yes yes I know: gradual changes over millions of years. Whatever. I reject it point blank. Period.
Theory of Evolution (as it pertains to humans): the belief (there is no proof of this --and don't point me to tedious, bloated "peer" reviewed baloney based on the presupposition the theory is true --I'm not reading anymore of that crap as my mind is made up already) that states humans and apes are both descended from a common ancestor. This common ancestor has never been found, only imaginative story telling and embellishment based on a few bones.
As a Creationist, I have to agree with you: Creationism --the assertion that God, who has always existed and who designed and created all things and all lifeforms, cannot be declared "science" because Creationism cannot be studied. No testing can be performed, and we can only guess how and when the creation event occurred. It is not repeatable as we are not gods. You can call the observation of the creation a science, such as studying plant life, but then you should call it Botany, not Creationism.
All that can be said of Creationism is that it is an explanation as to how matter came into existence and how it was formed into material entities like comets, planets, and living creatures. This explanation declares that the proof for the existence of a creator is the fact that matter exists, and that it is formed into arrangements that could not have come about by mindless random processes.
Trying to claim Creationism as science is the same as claiming Abiogenisis as science. Abiogenisis is a philosophy of origins piggy-backed on the tested, observed, documented, and therefore confirmed fact that over time, some creatures lose/have mutated genetic material which alters the appearance and/or life functions of future generations of that species.
ecologists think the internet could act as an early ecological warning system based on data mining human interactions
I think Aesop's fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf would probably apply here.
One reason it is a good idea to be polite to a policeman is because when you are stopped/detained for whatever reason, the policeman (or policewoman) is acting as on-the-spot justice. That person's decision can mean you get to go home free. If not, you may have to take off from a day of work to go drive around the middle of some cruddy small town an hour away from where you live, drive around that town trying to find a shabby courthouse, then find some place to park, and then wait around next to a line of down-n-outers for 2 hours to hear you have to spend $120 in court costs, or go to jail, or have your license to drive taken away for a month, or anything the judge pulls out of his bottom based on a sliding-scale rule of justice.
If the cop is having a bad day, doesn't like your attitude at the moment, then your infraction of the rules whether slight or definite is based in part on the whim and fancy of the police officer. It doesn't matter if you are innocent or not: you will have to go to court to prove you are innocent of the charge. You might even have to hire a lawyer to help prove that because it is your word against a cop's. Guess who usually wins in that case?
So it is in your best interest to be polite, not really out of fear of the policeman but out of the insane inconvenience of the judicial system which acts sort of like a Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on steroids.
Bureau of Open Source Software Technology: 80% of funds received
This bureau will consist of individuals attending seminars in the Bahamas and Hawaii to determine the best Open Source methods. Limo's will of course be required in all travel modes to ensure a comfortable atmosphere when deciding upon Open Source issues.
Result: Except for the Office of Open Source Technology, everyone will continue using existing vendors because there was no funding available to migrate all the databaes and custom applications to the Open Source format.
It is possible both are true to a slight degree, not so much a grand conspiracy but as a means for a few folks to prosper behind exaggerated claims swallowed by the gullible.
How did this leak out? Lies, all lies! Global Warming is real and true and happening and people are the cause of it.
It is true because I need that Global Warming Grant Money so I can study climate change from a necessity-based laboratory in the Bahamas.
Guess my senator didn't get the word to keep fanning the flames on global warming. Maybe a bigger donation will help, donation size contingent upon the size of the grant money...
Well put and well said. Excellent to point out Linux is a kernel.
As the speculation on Linux continues, "full of sound and fury signifying nothing", I'll keep plinking away using Fedora 10 not giving a whit about someone's delusions.
That's a false dichotomy. Matter could also have been preceded by something else, or exist in a loop
There is no evidence for this. Pre-matter? ??
some theoretical physicists are interested in the issue and who knows what they might come up with.
Yes, who knows what they'll come up with. Meanwhile, I'm not going to wait around putting my faith in their speculations.
what do we mean "has always existed?" I'll take it that you are meaning that your entity is older than the universe.
God transcends time. He has always existed. God's "age" as you put it is infinite. There was never a "time" God did not exist. There will never be a time God does not exist.
However, time started in the big bang, so in order for there to be a "before" we have to have a time frame outside of the universe, for which we have no evidence.
Time as we know it may have started at the big bang. However, regardless of when, we know now that matter is here. It came from somewhere. What time frame it came about is not the question. How it got here is the question. Not one person on this planet who has ever lived or is living knows the beginning of time. Matter either has always existed or it was created.
I see no reason to go along with the assumption that this other time frame exists (indeed if we accept one unevidenced time frame, why not two, or a hundred, or infinitely many?).
And I see no reason not to. I know matter exists. I don't know when time began or of other time periods outside the universe. I can only speculate like everyone else about that. I see matter. It is here. I can only ask where it came from, not when because I cannot go back in time or trace atoms to an origin.
We must assume that this entity has always existed in (at least) this second time frame rather than biting the dust in it right after starting our universal space-time, which I also see no reason to agree to.
Again, God transcends all time frames. God does not "bite the dust." God does not die. You assume God has not always existed or does not exist, I assume he does. The statement cannot be proven or disproven so it has to be taken on faith in our judgment based on our interpretation of the data: matter exists.
You posit it as a single entity--again with no reason to do so. The rest of your post is only apologetics that not only requires these assumptions, but introduces even more with just as little reason.
I assume, and am certain, God exists based on the premise that I know matter exists and matter had to come from somewhere, that it did not move itself some of it becoming living organisms that can see, hear, smell, speak, and reproduce. My whole belief stems from this certainty. The other alternative is God does not exist and matter moved itself and jumbled itself together by accident. That is not an acceptable or logical explanation.
Um....no. Other possibilities: God used to exist. God doesn't exist, yet. God, which one(s)? Loki, Thor, Brahma? All of the above? None? Some combination of the above that ooze out, separate, then merge back together like the blob? Or unknown? Binary choice my ass. The rest of your post is similarly poorly thought out.
The fact is, matter exists. It is here. So where did the matter, the helium and sulfur and so forth come from? Either it has always existed or it was created by something that has always existed, something that preceeded the existence of matter. To say matter popped out of nothing is absurd so isn't considered.
The only other reasonable alternative to matter always existing is an omnipotent and all-powerful being that created matter, the universe, life --everything. It is indeed a binary choice.
As to which name to put to this omnipotent being, I submit to you this: just as a sane, normal father loves his child, God loves his creation. But he does not force us to love him because if he did it would not be love. It has to be a free choice. The only way to discern "which is the true God" is to examine all the claims of who people say God is and compare. I could tell you which one I have discovered to be the true God but my word means nothing. You have to examine the claims yourself. If you don't know why you believe in God, just taking someone else's word for it, that is not good and you have no foundation to stand on.
b0ttle said: I'd really like to know more about your creational beliefs, could you explain it in more details?
Ok, for what it's worth, as one who believes that Creationism better explains life than Evolutionism, I'll give it a whirl.
First, I'll lay some groundwork concerning my conclusion. One's belief in Creationism or Evolutionism is determined by how a person believes concerning the origin of matter: either matter has always existed and always been in motion (as Robert Ingersoll posits) or God has always existed, created matter, and set it in motion.
The existence of God is a binary choice: God exists or God does not exist. One of these statements is true and one is false. They cannot both be true and they cannot both be false. It must be one or the other, just as an electrical switch is on or off: either the switch is on or it is off.
So which is it? It must be one or the other. Here is basically the two versions:
Version 1 There is no God. Hydrogen (and all matter for that matter) has always existed. These particles of matter over unfathomable lengths of time moved themselves together, perhaps by magnetism or molecular attraction to form water, proteins, iron, and all manner of molecules which, again over long periods of time, combined to form comets, planets, suns, and eventually a living organism. Over time the information blueprint of this organism (DNA) mutated forming different but similar organisms which changed even further over time. Eventually, blind organisms derived the ability to see, mindless creatures derived the ability to evaluate conditions and make use of what it has seen, and deaf creatures derived the ability to hear. Plants, themselves blind, deaf, and mindless, who have no concept of air currents, structural design, or gravity, formed, by blind, mindless processes aerodynamic seedlings which could disperse in the breeze. Spiders with silk glands (another chance mutation) appeared from the pool of organisms forming and taught themselves to spin webs and somehow imparted this information into its DNA. After so many millions of years of these blueprint changes, organisms becoming more and more complex, these changes accumulated to form a human being, forming at the same time both male and female versions that could come together and produce offspring.
Version 2 God has always existed, has no beginning or ending. This God created all matter, and from this matter God created the universe, setting the magnitude of suns and the spinning of planets. God also created all living things within a short period of time from each other, including humans; both male and female God created them.
Others more intelligent and expressive than myself have put it better than I but this is basically what it comes down to. People have argued for centuries over which is the correct version. I do not pretend to resolve such disputes here other than portray the two options available. Whichever version you choose is a matter of faith because no human has any idea where matter came from. There are only guesses and a consensus of plausible possibilities.
So, is it Creation or Evolution? For me, the evidence for Creation is all around: the earth, the elements, trees, the sun --all of these entities did not pop out of nowhere, hence, they were created.
Rocks do not move themselves. Mindless matter does not accumulate into the fantastic designs with purpose such as a reproductve system or the human mind. Since it is not plausible that random, mindless, chance processes or accidents could result in life as we see today then the only other option is God.
Evolution posits that all life started from a common ancestor (this ancestor arising via abiogenesis) and "evolved" over time via mutations and Natural Selection to the diverse species we see today. This theory cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. It is a possible explanation, just as it is possible a cosmic baboon farted life into existence, and many scientist attempt to push round pegs into square holes to try and make the evidence fit with the assumption that the theory is true, but it is not a plausible theory given belief in God.
The only text I cut & pasted was what I provided referring to a failed evolutionary prediction, and part of the text from EvoWiki concerning nested hierarchies. I could not find a direct definition of twin-nested hierarchies so I had to read a lot of long-winded text and put it in a short definition form.
I assure you that what I have written here are all of my own words except what I mentioned above. I do not crib or plagiarize things or parrot other people's thoughts though my thoughts may resemble other people's thoughts. I put things in my own words and stand by what I say.
And fear? I do not live in fear, not of spooks or boogey men and certainly not scientific theories. I live life with a love and appreciation of what God hath created, and I live life with a love for other people. On the whole I am content, I am at peace. Whether the Theory of Evolution is true or not is frankly irrelevant.
And as for ignorance, I do not pretend to claim that I know all things about the Theory of Evolution, and I have not analyzed every little detail which I have not the time nor inclination to do; yet, I have examined it enough to my satisfaction, which I have explained in the previous 2 posts that I am not convinced the Theory of Evolution is the correct conclusion concerning the complexity of life I see around me.
I guess this should be the end of the discussion. You are convinced I am stupid, fearful, and ignorant because I do not accept the Theory of Evolution as fact, and I consider you...well...living with a dark materialistic veil before your eyes, as someone wearing a pair of sunglasses with a big face of Darwin painted on the lenses obscuring your view.
In 100 years from now, what you or I believed concerning evolution will not matter a tot really.
My incredulity is indeed legitimate criticism, no different than my incredulity at someone claiming he swam to Mars in scuba gear riding the solar winds on a space surfboard. And I am not completely ignorant of evolution (I do admit I am not a biologist though). I have studied the Theory of Evolution enough to know it is not true, that the evidence is no evidence at all only assumption and the shaving of square pegs to fit into round holes.
What is so intelligent about the human knee? It is a fantastic work of design that allows a human to perform a large range of motions such as jumping and squatting; indeed, without knees we would have to lie down to defecate or do so standing up. As any machine, over time they can wear out if too much a burden is placed upon them such as repeated damage from playing sports or from obesity.
The eye is also a fantastic design, and I will add: a blind organism could not, under any circustance, create for itself the means to see. For that to happen you would have to have foreknowledge of light, something a blind organism would not have. This idea going around "the eye is a flawed design" is poppycock. Just because we do not understand all the why and wherefores of the design do not make it a bad design.
People have back problems mainly because of obesity, injury, old age, lack of exercise, and disease, among others.
Concerning Twin-nested Hierarchy:
As I mentioned, I am not a scientist, but I took your suggestion and read up on this issue at Talk Origins and EvoWiki. (which is why my response to you took some time).
"Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups fit neatly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. For instance, all bats (order Chiroptera) are mammals. All mammals are vertebrates. Likewise, all whales (order Cetacea) are also mammals, and thus also vertebrates
"Twin-Nested hierarchy" refers to the way taxonomic groups are not only similar at the morphological level, they are also similar at the genetic level, such as sharing the same sequences of RNA.
I have to conclude this does not prove anything other than that similar creatures such as mammals share similar genetic traits, such as the ability to produce milk to nurse its young. When I see tits on a fish, yeah, maybe I'll take nested-hierarchies as proof of evolution more seriously.
There is great hooting and puffing over the claims that evolution predicts things, but there are many failed predictions of evolutionary theory. One of these failed predictions relates to the sizes of metazoan genomes:
'At one time it seemed possible that the amount of DNA would be a good measure of complexity (Sneath, 1964), but as genome sizes became known, little correlation was found with perceived morphological complexity.' Valentine, J.W., Two genomic paths to the evolution of complexity in bodyplans, Paleobiology Ref. 7, p. 513
I still remain unconvinced. Evolution seems to me a bad case of circular reasoning: evolution is true. evolution predicts nested-hieararchies. organisms are arranged in nested-hieararchies. evolution is true.
Common sense is not a euphamism for cultural prejudices, it is a form of wisdom, which is sound judgment upon a matter based upon honest observation and experience.
Anyway, this kind of stuff has been debated ad infinitum with few if any people changing their minds on the matter. This stuff has been debated for over a hundred years and I, putting my Prediction Device next to the Evolution Prediction Device, predict the debate will continue even if the government makes it illegal to teach either Creationism or the Theory of Evolution but instead, it is the great Buddha who did it all with one big fart.
The Theory of Evolution is an hypothesis that a small simple organism managed to acquire new information in its genetic code allowing it to gradually change over millions of years, its descendants eventually becoming all the creatures we see today, including humans.
This is not to be confused with evolution which is organisms changing according to a selection or corruption (mutation) of information already within its genetic code, such as Darwin's finches: genes for short beaks and long beaks in finches is present in its genetic code, the beak which predominates depends on environmental factors such as food availability.
We know evolution (not the theory) occurs because it is observed, and we have a reasonable amount of knowledge that explain how these changes occur.
The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is an extrapolation upon evolution saying that since we know organisms can change, sometimes dramatically such as getting poodles from wolves, it is reasonable to expect an amoeba can, over time, become a tadpole, and can eventually allow an organism to gain the information to sprout feathers and fly up into the sky.
This is an unproven assertion and is a leap (off a cliff) in logic. Granted, it is a possible explanation, an explanation perfectly acceptable if there are is no god and matter has always existed, or it poofed out of nothing into existence then somehow combined itself over time to form planets and stars and water and just happened to form life from unlife, somehow.
The only other reasonable alternative is a supreme intelligence, God, who was not created and who has always existed and who arranged all the hydrogen and atomic particles into their respective categories to form planets, stars, and yes, humans too, and that this God loves his creation just as as parent (a non-dysfunctional one, mind you) loves his child.
It is my opinion that this Theory is insignificant considering the whole of biology and is not worth the time to teach in the public schools. It should be relegated to an advanced biology class in college so that a student who then learns about the theory can more appreciate the details pertaining to it, and can make up his or her own mind whether God created life or natural processes caused life to happen.
As for me, after looking at the world around me I can only conclude God created all life, for a blind, mindless organism such as a maple tree could never design for itself an aerodynamic seedling to be dispersed in the breeze. To design such a seedling requires intelligence and a knowledge of wind currents and wing structure. Even Natural Selection must be designed, for to be able to select the better of two options based on the current circumstances you must have intelligence to make such a decision otherwise it is random selection.
Also, consider the spider: it spins its web in the dark, not using its eyes for the task, and it spins the web correctly the first time. Who taught the spider to spin? It has a brain smaller than a grain of sand, and the mother dies before the spiderling is born so it isn't taugh how to spin. I can only conclude that a high intelligence, with knowledge of structural engineering, among other things, programmed the spider with this knowledge.
You can trot out supposed transitional fossils as "proof" of the Theory, and you can mass-produce from the universities myriads of minutia claiming "it's true! see all these papers and diagrams!" to try and snowball one into believing it hook, line, and sinker, kind of how lawyers weary an opponent with massive tomes of drivel, but my good conscious and common sense says it just ain't so, no more than Kipling's "Just So" stories.
My copy of Vista also works well but due to only having a paltry 1 gb of ram I had to disable many graphic features to get reasonable response times. My first few hours with the OS I was just about ready to rip it off the machine I was so mad at the poor performance and ridiculous wait times while the OS figured out what to do.
When an OS sends you a message "Determining amount of time to copy file" and it takes the OS 20 seconds to figure out it only needs a second to copy a 300 byte file, well, I have to conclude the OS is a pile of crap. I had to revert to using the command line to copy files it got so bad, especially copying from a CD. Eventually things sorted themselves out. I don't know whether it was because I turned off some features or the OS "learned" how to copy files in a reasonable time. I don't know.
My latest annoyance with the OS is that Vista rebooted itself to install an update it auto-downloaded hours before. The reboot occurred without informing me so I was knocked out of the app I was using and I lost all current data. Luckily, it wasn't important data but still, I don't trust this OS at all and won't be using it to do important stuff. I got a Vista machine mainly for use as a gaming console so I'll keep using an older PC running openBSD for email/web/documents. Later, I'll probably make the Vista machine dual-boot.