Good point. There are also different types of Evolution... evolution is a broad term basically meaning change over time. When you think about it like that, there is no doubt in anyones mind that evolution exists.
What I argue, is that we evolved from Apes or another species. I just don't see how that could be possible give the facts and data provided.
There is definitely evolution within 'kinds' of animals... we can see every day... even evolution within Humans... I believe we as a Human race have gradually gotten taller due to natural selection (no offense to those who are vertically challenged).;)
No, due to the fact that Micro-evolution can only reduce the information contained within the DNA. I haven't seen evidence of mutations or micro-evolutions that can add additional information into the DNA... Yes, a wolf can evolve into a Labrador and then into a poodle, but that is all using the DNA information that was present within the wolf, but just removing bits and pieces. Even some of the claims of micro organisms 'evolving' to do things such as eat nylon or other such things is really a case of those organisms already containing the necessary information to be able to do such a task. I just haven't been convinced that it is possible to add additional information into the DNA that wasn't there to begin with.
Um, what does this even mean? I can't parse this sentence in a way that becomes coherent. You seem to a) think that "Darwinism" is a meaningful term and that b) it is distinct from "evolution." This leaves me slightly confused. Although given the later material in your post it does provide a nice example to support the contention of many posters here that "Darwinism" as a term is used primarily by creationists. Incidentally, science doesn't care at all about "proof." Nothing in science is every proven. Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.
Ok, you certainly are a self prescribed smart guy. Congrats on your self esteem.
Proof - Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.
I'm still waiting for your proof... looks like I'll have to wait quite long period (hopefully not millions of years) for your proof while you debate my grammar and meaning of words.
First, I don't think you mean "compel" but rather "challenge" or "request." Second, I think don't mean "information to a species" but rather information to a specific genome.
Ok, thanks for making my point above. You knew what I meant, yet you waste my time explaining all this. Thanks buddy!
Well we're in luck because we have lots of those also. For example, we have bacteria which have evolved to be able to eat nylon. And that's one of many examples.
Oh, it's nice that you believe the things that are spoon fed into your brain. There are plenty of reasons that example is not a case of evolution... Nylon Eating Bacteria Explained I'm still waiting for a solid example... since you claim to have lots of examples, can you please find a better one?
But not having a complete list of every single mutation is not an argument against evolution.
I don't want a list of every single mutation... all I want is one example mutation that fits your theory. Just one valid mutation that creates something new that didn't already exist in the genetic makeup of the previous organism.
Wait, what? I thought there were no mutations adding information. Please make up your mind. Do mutations not work at all or not work within species? And what do you mean by "work" anyhow?
Mutations are all around us. In fact, some mutations are even good mutations (as they can get rid of bad information). My claim was that mutations have never added additional information, and they don't... they only re-order information, or more often than not, cause a loss of information. And never could they cause a change from one "kind" to another. They can go so far as to make part of one species not able to breed with other members of the same species due to the loss of information necessary for breeding. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years). But they did not grow legs, nor grow feathers, or any sort of such thing...they don't have the information in their genes to do so. It just wont happen...ever.
Ok, this is simply false. Go read Origin of Species. It has that title for a reason. Seriously, go read the book. Second, even if he had never talked about speciation it would be irrelevant to whether or not it happens. Biology is not a religion which worships Darwin. He got quite a bit wrong (for example, he really didn't understand genetics or the possibility of something like neutral drift). That's ok. Science isn't tied down to the details of what Darwin wrote.
Ok, I'm not sure you have read the book. I will admit that I haven't read the book... but please, feel free to quote me some of the parts that talk about the Origin of Species (minus the ti
Point respectively taken. I appreciate the dialog you have stated.
I'm not going to go into the additional Bible verses you have stated, as I have not done research on those and do not have the answers at this time.
On the creation part... It's hard for me to imagine it not being the inviolate word of God (ok, maybe not so hard as, it was just recently I did believe the opposite). I do believe God is all powerful and all knowledgeable... I believe He could of created everything that has ever existed or ever will exist in a single instance... less than a millisecond if He wanted. But he didn't do that... he chose to use the word for 'day' and he qualified each 'day' by numbering them along with saying there was evening and there was morning for each day. To me, that means each day was an ordinary twenty-four hour day. The word for 'day' in the original language of the Bible is used over 400 times in the Bible... and whenever it is qualified with a number OR used with evening and morning it ALWAYS means an ordinary twenty-four hour day. Why would God mean something different in Genesis when he uses the word for 'day'? To me, there is only one creation story, and that is exactly as the Bible says. We also base our current week of seven days off of this creation story. We don't have Millions of years long weeks do we? I sure would enjoy that millions of years rest period though.;)
(I used to believe in the Millions of years theory as I was brought up in public schools and taught about evolution... it wasn't until a recent Bible study going over the Ken Ham videos that I have found what I believe to be the best answers. The word of God, creation in six ordinary twenty-four hour days... See more at answersingenesis.org)
Well, I do believe my post was poorly written... I'm a conservative Christian who was trying to point out that you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe. In my opinion, it's all or nothing, and I believe in it all.
God created the earth in six ordinary days. Enough said.
Those that use science to "prove" otherwise are basing their science on assumptions that they cannot prove and it requires things to happen that have never been observed.
I'm sick of pandering to the ill-educated buffoons who want to drag civilisation kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what?
His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted.
Again, so what?
Darwin laid the bedrock, the foundation, upon which stands much of modern science, let alone biology.
And until you can give me a reason why we should metaphorically bury the giants upon who's shoulders we collectively stand, I will resist this utterly foolish idea.
Darwin talked about natural selection, survival of the fittest, and micro-evolution only... he was correct about that, but there is no proof of macro-evolution... NONE. Only micro-evolution within species. How does one species evolve into another? Please explain...
Let us pray that Obama can wipe public references to deities into oblivion.
God willing.
If you believe in Evolution, you can't believe in God... (I'm going to assume you do believe in God for my next statement) What makes you think you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe? In the beginning God created Heaven, Earth, all creatures, and Humans... If you believe in the virgin birth (which science proves can't happen without an egg and a sperm in Humans)... then why can't you believe the all powerful, all knowledgeable God created everything in six twenty four hour days and reseted on the seventh day as He says in the Bible?
Darwinism 'opened the door' for creationism? GIVE ME A BREAK! Creation is in the Bible, and has been around way before Darwinism. Darwinism gives no proof for evolution.
I compel you to name one mutation that has been observed to add information to a species. Just one! Let alone the hundreds of thousands of mutations that would be necessary to go from molecules of sludge to Human. Information doesn't come from nothing. Natural selection and mutations only work within a species. Darwin himself never talks about the origin of species in his book... only about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Evolution (a.k.a. change over time) only happens at a Micro-Evolution level. How do you explain the gain of information... for example fish to reptiles to birds... where did the information about feathers come from if mutations can build information and natural selection only reduces information.
It's not over until it's over and I find it despicable that people are counting Ron Paul out... He has a great chance and has the right stuff for America. He knows what this country needs. Get out the word people. Don't let the media control this race. We the people have the final say! Get out the word, Get out and vote Ron Paul 2008!
When I read the following I can think of only one candidate that will work... Ron Paul...
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. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
I agree that MediaWiki is the best overall answer...
Here are my main reasons:
Open Source
Has been proven to handle mass amounts of data with Wikipedia
Expandable / Customizable
Great historical views of documents
Easy for both technical and non technical people to pick up
Actively being enhanced
I like your argument about people that say docs "decrease their value"... the only problem is I believe the people who think that docs decrease their value are most likely not so intelligent and no so useful after all. This makes them worried that once their processes are documented it will show to everyone how easily they can be replaced. Which is probably true for the vast majority of IT people. I have found there are only a few highly intelligent people at most companies that are truly irreplaceable (even that is debatable).
The IT people that get laid off will just have more time to write more Open Source... if Open Source seems to be dwindling I would think that would be a sign that things are good for IT careers since they are too busing working their 9-5 job to be able to write open source software.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. There are also different types of Evolution... evolution is a broad term basically meaning change over time. When you think about it like that, there is no doubt in anyones mind that evolution exists.
;)
What I argue, is that we evolved from Apes or another species. I just don't see how that could be possible give the facts and data provided.
There is definitely evolution within 'kinds' of animals... we can see every day... even evolution within Humans... I believe we as a Human race have gradually gotten taller due to natural selection (no offense to those who are vertically challenged).
No, due to the fact that Micro-evolution can only reduce the information contained within the DNA. I haven't seen evidence of mutations or micro-evolutions that can add additional information into the DNA... Yes, a wolf can evolve into a Labrador and then into a poodle, but that is all using the DNA information that was present within the wolf, but just removing bits and pieces. Even some of the claims of micro organisms 'evolving' to do things such as eat nylon or other such things is really a case of those organisms already containing the necessary information to be able to do such a task. I just haven't been convinced that it is possible to add additional information into the DNA that wasn't there to begin with.
Um, what does this even mean? I can't parse this sentence in a way that becomes coherent. You seem to a) think that "Darwinism" is a meaningful term and that b) it is distinct from "evolution." This leaves me slightly confused. Although given the later material in your post it does provide a nice example to support the contention of many posters here that "Darwinism" as a term is used primarily by creationists. Incidentally, science doesn't care at all about "proof." Nothing in science is every proven. Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians.
Ok, you certainly are a self prescribed smart guy. Congrats on your self esteem.
Proof - Any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something.
I'm still waiting for your proof... looks like I'll have to wait quite long period (hopefully not millions of years) for your proof while you debate my grammar and meaning of words.
First, I don't think you mean "compel" but rather "challenge" or "request." Second, I think don't mean "information to a species" but rather information to a specific genome.
Ok, thanks for making my point above. You knew what I meant, yet you waste my time explaining all this. Thanks buddy!
Well we're in luck because we have lots of those also. For example, we have bacteria which have evolved to be able to eat nylon. And that's one of many examples.
Oh, it's nice that you believe the things that are spoon fed into your brain. There are plenty of reasons that example is not a case of evolution... Nylon Eating Bacteria Explained I'm still waiting for a solid example... since you claim to have lots of examples, can you please find a better one?
But not having a complete list of every single mutation is not an argument against evolution.
I don't want a list of every single mutation... all I want is one example mutation that fits your theory. Just one valid mutation that creates something new that didn't already exist in the genetic makeup of the previous organism.
Wait, what? I thought there were no mutations adding information. Please make up your mind. Do mutations not work at all or not work within species? And what do you mean by "work" anyhow?
Mutations are all around us. In fact, some mutations are even good mutations (as they can get rid of bad information). My claim was that mutations have never added additional information, and they don't... they only re-order information, or more often than not, cause a loss of information. And never could they cause a change from one "kind" to another. They can go so far as to make part of one species not able to breed with other members of the same species due to the loss of information necessary for breeding. For example, one study gave evidence that sockeye salmon introduced into Lake Washington, USA, between 1937 and 1945 had split into two reproductively isolated populations (i.e., two separate species) in fewer than 13 generations (a maximum of 56 years). But they did not grow legs, nor grow feathers, or any sort of such thing...they don't have the information in their genes to do so. It just wont happen...ever.
Ok, this is simply false. Go read Origin of Species. It has that title for a reason. Seriously, go read the book. Second, even if he had never talked about speciation it would be irrelevant to whether or not it happens. Biology is not a religion which worships Darwin. He got quite a bit wrong (for example, he really didn't understand genetics or the possibility of something like neutral drift). That's ok. Science isn't tied down to the details of what Darwin wrote.
Ok, I'm not sure you have read the book. I will admit that I haven't read the book... but please, feel free to quote me some of the parts that talk about the Origin of Species (minus the ti
Point respectively taken. I appreciate the dialog you have stated.
;)
I'm not going to go into the additional Bible verses you have stated, as I have not done research on those and do not have the answers at this time.
On the creation part... It's hard for me to imagine it not being the inviolate word of God (ok, maybe not so hard as, it was just recently I did believe the opposite). I do believe God is all powerful and all knowledgeable... I believe He could of created everything that has ever existed or ever will exist in a single instance... less than a millisecond if He wanted. But he didn't do that... he chose to use the word for 'day' and he qualified each 'day' by numbering them along with saying there was evening and there was morning for each day. To me, that means each day was an ordinary twenty-four hour day. The word for 'day' in the original language of the Bible is used over 400 times in the Bible... and whenever it is qualified with a number OR used with evening and morning it ALWAYS means an ordinary twenty-four hour day. Why would God mean something different in Genesis when he uses the word for 'day'? To me, there is only one creation story, and that is exactly as the Bible says. We also base our current week of seven days off of this creation story. We don't have Millions of years long weeks do we? I sure would enjoy that millions of years rest period though.
(I used to believe in the Millions of years theory as I was brought up in public schools and taught about evolution... it wasn't until a recent Bible study going over the Ken Ham videos that I have found what I believe to be the best answers. The word of God, creation in six ordinary twenty-four hour days... See more at answersingenesis.org)
Well, I do believe my post was poorly written... I'm a conservative Christian who was trying to point out that you can't pick and choose what parts of the Bible you want to believe. In my opinion, it's all or nothing, and I believe in it all. God created the earth in six ordinary days. Enough said. Those that use science to "prove" otherwise are basing their science on assumptions that they cannot prove and it requires things to happen that have never been observed.
I'm sick of pandering to the ill-educated buffoons who want to drag civilisation kicking and screaming back into the dark ages.
Darwin wasn't utterly and completely right first time out of the bag. So what? His discoveries have been validated, refined, added-to, improved in ways he could never have predicted. Again, so what?
Darwin laid the bedrock, the foundation, upon which stands much of modern science, let alone biology.
And until you can give me a reason why we should metaphorically bury the giants upon who's shoulders we collectively stand, I will resist this utterly foolish idea.
Darwin talked about natural selection, survival of the fittest, and micro-evolution only... he was correct about that, but there is no proof of macro-evolution... NONE. Only micro-evolution within species. How does one species evolve into another? Please explain...
God willing.
If you believe in Evolution, you can't believe in God... (I'm going to assume you do believe in God for my next statement) What makes you think you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible you believe? In the beginning God created Heaven, Earth, all creatures, and Humans... If you believe in the virgin birth (which science proves can't happen without an egg and a sperm in Humans)... then why can't you believe the all powerful, all knowledgeable God created everything in six twenty four hour days and reseted on the seventh day as He says in the Bible?
Darwinism 'opened the door' for creationism? GIVE ME A BREAK! Creation is in the Bible, and has been around way before Darwinism. Darwinism gives no proof for evolution.
I compel you to name one mutation that has been observed to add information to a species. Just one! Let alone the hundreds of thousands of mutations that would be necessary to go from molecules of sludge to Human. Information doesn't come from nothing. Natural selection and mutations only work within a species. Darwin himself never talks about the origin of species in his book... only about natural selection and survival of the fittest. Evolution (a.k.a. change over time) only happens at a Micro-Evolution level. How do you explain the gain of information... for example fish to reptiles to birds... where did the information about feathers come from if mutations can build information and natural selection only reduces information.
My facts come from answersingenesis.org
HAHAHA - I get it... very nice!
When I read the following I can think of only one candidate that will work... Ron Paul...
Here are my main reasons:
I like your argument about people that say docs "decrease their value"... the only problem is I believe the people who think that docs decrease their value are most likely not so intelligent and no so useful after all. This makes them worried that once their processes are documented it will show to everyone how easily they can be replaced. Which is probably true for the vast majority of IT people. I have found there are only a few highly intelligent people at most companies that are truly irreplaceable (even that is debatable).
The IT people that get laid off will just have more time to write more Open Source... if Open Source seems to be dwindling I would think that would be a sign that things are good for IT careers since they are too busing working their 9-5 job to be able to write open source software.