or that human, chimps and viruses have the same DESIGNER
The designer just happened to insert the same ERVs in the same positions in humans and chimps? And in equivalent places in other life forms that just happen to match the exact predictions made by Evolution?
Internal combustion engines are found in motorcycles, cars, airplanes, tractors and who knows what.
But that's not what this is. This is more of the same minor flaws appear in all engines.
Just because we don't know the function of a life form doesn't mean it has none.
Oh, we know what ERVs are, and what function they serve.
Modern science came about BECAUSE people began experimenting and observing our world, rather than just speculation and philosophizing about how things worked, as they used to do. The ESSENCE of real science is experimentation and careful observations, not fancy computer models based on ASSUMPTIONS.
Computer models? You really ARE ignorant!
As always, when the people dislike the message or cannot refute it, they resort to attacks on the messenger
It is not an attack to point out the fact that your argument is a straw man.
Someone may call the modified e-coli something else, but the still are basically e-coli.
They are not e-coli when they are completely different and don't have the characteristics of e-coli.
Every evolutionary INTERPRETATION of the same facts can and does have a design INTERPRETATION as well.
No, it does not. ERVs, transitional fossils, nylonase, etc. all contradict creationism.
Both are BELIEFS.
False. One takes all facts into accounts, makes true predictions and has practical applications. Creationism has NONE of these.
I have never read an article longer than a few paragraphs on evolution, where the word BELIEVED or ASSUMED was not found. The theory of evolution is not a scientific one, but a religious one where the high priests calling themselves scientists, promulgate the certain beliefs.
First of all, your quotes are irrelevant to the point of this. The point here is what ERVs are. What they show.
Secondly, you are mistaking intellectual honesty for somethign else. Just because science doesn't deal with the absolutes of irrational religion (science is always tentative), it does not make assumptions. Please educate yourself, as you are clearly ignorant of what science really is.
These viruses, like all viruses still remain that, namely viruses. They never themselves became a different life form, nor were they able to transform themselves they invaded in to another organism.
Just as I thought, you are completely ignorant of Evolution. ERVs are not interesting because they "became a different life form". ERVs are interesting because they once infected the germ cells of a life form, which then passed the virus down through the generations.
Here's a video for you to educate yourself. From the video description:
"Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs providence the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution.
You cannot get around the fact that all laboratory experiments ever done has not produced a single new life form.
Your ignorance leads you to believe that all science is, is "laboratory experiments". No wonder your conclusions are so weird.
All experiments with e-coli have never produced anything but more e-coli.
Actually, a new strand has been observed to appear which has lost the key thing that makes e-coli e-coli. Which means that they are e-coli no more.
All the thousands of generations of fruit flies (drosphila) have never produced anything except, guess what, fruit flies. Cats have always made more cats and dogs have always made more dogs.
More straw men. Typical of desperate creationists.
This blind process, rather than the input of a rational mind is theorized to be behind the origin and development of life.
What do you mean by "blind process"? You mean as in "blind chance"?
This idea, as well as modified versions thereof, have been extended to cosmology and astronomy.
No, it has not. Again, Evolution is biology, nothing else.
Instead of making personal attacks, why do you not give me an example of only ONE model on the subject of of origins, that is based solely on facts and makes no assumptions whatsoever.
Evolution is based solely on facts. Like all other scientific theories, Evolution has moved from being a hypothesis (not an assumption, but a possible explanation to be tested) to a theory (fully supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, etc.).
I can however, spare you the trouble by pointing out that ALL origin models, without a single exception, always assume that presently observed processes can be extrapolated over immense time periods.
It is not an assumption. It is what all facts point to.
In nature, linear relationships are the exception rather than the norm.
This is another straw man.
We assume (believe) therefore that this is a linear process, even over immense amounts of time, millions and even billions of years. This assumption of linearity underlies all models of radioactive dating.
Again you need to stop spewing out nonsense. Please educate yourself.
We observe geological processes such as erosion, mountain building, continental drift etc. occurring at what appears to us as rather constant rates. Based on the assumed constancy, we build models reaching back millions or billions of years.
And again, you really, really need to educate yourself.
You pay to have a telephone, you pay to have a mailing address, you pay to have a house, and you pay (at least in terms of opportunity costs) whenever you talk with solicitors. Email is nothing special in that regard.
E-mail is special because I bear the cost, and because there's no real physical limit as to how many the spammer can send.
Commercial speech which regards lawful activity and is not misleading is protected by the First Amendment, according to the Supreme Court in numerous decisions.
That's great and all, but it's got nothing to do with spam. Free speech does not involve aiming a thousand megaphones at someone's head and blurting out ads, drowning out most other things.
Because I pay for someone else flooding me with crap.
Or better yet, find something important worth bitching about.... I'd rather have free speech, along with plenty of speech I hate, than have free speech infringed upon
I'm talking about the offer from Hillary that he never took her up on
Oh, that one debate he didn't participate in? Yeah, I guess that nullifies the record 21 debates he had with Clinton!
where the real issues could have been presented
Ah, it was only in that particular debate that the REAL issues could have been presented? All the 12 other debates were just nonsense, obviously.
And secondly, why does going to a town hall with republicans matter? Let your words speak for themselves
To republicans, words do not speak for themselves. Words are spun.
I think he feared he wouldn't have had as much support for his usual change, hope, and change for America speech that we've been hearing since A WHOLE YEAR AGO.
Or maybe he wasn't interested in playing the dishonest games of wannabe fascists.
An atheist is someone who confidently asserts that there is no God.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, for whatever reason. Just like someone who does not believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Logically then, all that exists, has to be attributed to something else. That something else is the theory of evolution, which basically says that everything evolved over immense periods of time without any intelligent input.
Evolution is biology. It deals with life on earth. Anything else is just your imagination (or ignorance).
Any model, no matter what it is about, is constructed on a foundation of underlying assumptions. No model can be or has ever been constructed solely based on facts.
This is false. You are clearly deeply ignorant about science. Or dishonest.
One basic assumption that all science makes, is that the laws of the universe are predictable and unchanging, rather than varying in some random manner and place. Based on the short time that observational science has existed, this assumption APPEARS to be correct. We believe, based upon the short time we have observed the speed of light for example, that it and its related "constants" is truly invariant over thousands or even millions of years. It is this belief in constancy, upon which every dating model is founded.
I recommend that you educate yourself instead of spouting nonsense.
Therefore, models based upon the current belief that nothing has changed over time will give completely erroneous results.
Darwin's ideas have been extended beyond the sphere of biology.
What others are using it for is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution, which deals with biology.
There is not one scientific experiment or observation that cannot equally be explained by the alternative worldview of creation.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Things like endogenous retroviruses can only be explained using the evolutionary model.
Since when has truth ever been a popularity contest, even scientific truth?
Science is based on consensus. Furthermore, when all authorities in a field agree, one can be certain that the science is indeed solid. Then you have the few loonies who aren't even in a relevant field who "question" Evolution with straw men and misinformation.
If you would study the history of science, you would certainly learn, that it was more often than not, the lone voice in the wilderness that was finally proven to be correct. True scientific progress has never been a product of a committee or the consensus of a crowd.
Oh, but you are mistaken. That lone voice in the wilderness would have to do actual science to get anywhere. Unfortunately, creationists are unable (or unwilling) to bother.
Any model for explaining anything is nothing more than an expression of an underlying belief, a basic worldview.
No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts, regardless of the person's beliefs and worldview. Evolution, for example, is accepted by religious scientists as well as scientists without a religion. These have drastically different, and one might say opposite, beliefs and worldviews. But that is irrelevant, since the explanation doesn't rely on any specific beliefs.
The universe either involved by some process or it was created through the actions of an intelligent mind. Which one of these two alternatives do you consider to be a strawman.
That's just dishonest of you. You claimed that "an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance". This is the straw man.
ALL observations of science, the actual facts, the actual data, can be interpreted through either one or the other of the two basic world views.
No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
There are many scientists today, with just as many degrees in front of or after their name, that are increasingly uncomfortable with the mechanistic, probabilistic interpretation of the amazing world of nature.
This is false. These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists.
Why is it almost nobody has any problems with attributing a highly ordered system, such as a wristwatch, a computer chip or an airplane to intelligent design, but most are unwilling to make the same attribution to the origin of living systems?
How can anybody's belief to be backed up by science? A belief is a belief, no matter who holds it.
I agree. The OP mistakenly referred to Evolution as a "belief", when it is in fact not a belief. It is a model for explaining what we observe in nature.
Anybody who is an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance.
No, this is a straw man.
Everything we observe about the universe, all life including ourselves in it, can be and is being interpreted by this fundamental difference in world views.
No. Only one model is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
We also observe and experience every day that every effect has a cause.
No, this is not necessarily the case. Especially in a "pre-universe" state, the laws of physics were not necessarily as they are today.
It's a much greater stretch to believe that a designer intelligent and powerful enough to create the entire universe from nothing, would have a logical reason to want to fool us humans, who he claims to love, like that.
Nobody, anywhere in any place has ever observed anything else.
Actually, we have observed actual speciation. And especially among bacteria we see new proteins enzymes appearing (and if there's no limit to how proteins can change, there's no limit to how the entire organism can change).
If they do, they make it perfectly clear. It's called intellectual honesty. If they make an assumption, they explain why they made that assumption, what the weaknesses are, and exactly how that assumption is supported, and how it could be wrong.
Scientists don't have a worldview with which they filter the evidence?
Oh, they certainly do. Which is why the scientific process is so useful. You don't have to rely on a single person's claims. That person must back up his claims with actual data and research that can be duplicated by others.
Anything that comes their way that cannot be grasped by their finite mind, is summarily dismissed as supernatural and therefore automatically false.
This is obviously completely wrong. If there is something we cannot understand, we keep trying to figure it out. That's why we have science. If there's anything that summarily dismisses anything it's the "we can't explain it, so we'll assume that God did it and ignore the problem" crowd.
Since nobody alive today was around to observe the formation of fossils, we have to BELIEVE what certain scientists think how and when fossils came to be. They claim to have certain evidence of this, but all evidence must be BELIEVED, it is not absolute proof.
Here's where you get it wrong again. The thing with science is that it has worked nicely so far, so accepting scientific consensus is the best thing to do for us normal people who don't have all the expertise. You seem to believe in some massive scientific conspiracy and coverup just because the evidence doesn't support your world view, but science has brought us all these useful things like technology, medicine, etc. Even if you don't believe in an objective reality, you should at least accept that science makes more sense than blind religious faith because it has been working fine until now.
You seem to equate the acceptance of scientific consensus and religious faith, which is completely off the mark. Scientific consensus is based on verified facts. Religious faith is based on blind belief in something.
It also makes sense to do it the way Firefox does it.
Not as much as having the address bar closer to the page than the tab bar, since the address bar "belongs" to the page.
The essence of your argument is thalt it would make more sense to have an tachometer mounted directly on the engine of a car, because it belongs to the engine
No, that comparison is obviously invalid. You can't even see if it it isn't in in front of the driver's seat.
The tab represents the page, and the address bar reflects, and is associated with, the current page. It changes when you move to a different page (or even when moving between fragment links in the same page).
That's what Opera does, and it drives me nuts. It's like going back to MDI.
As I wrote in another comment:
Tabbed browsing is MDI:)
MDI is simply a multiple document interface. "Tabs" are merely one way to present a multiple document interface.
Besides, whether the tab bar is above or below the address bar is mostly cosmetic. But it makes sense to do it the way Opera does it, since the address bar is specific to, and belongs to, each specific page you are viewing.
Tabs above the address bar... no. Been there with Opera and I hate it, it's going back to MDI.
Tabbed browsing is MDI:)
MDI is simply a multiple document interface. "Tabs" are merely one way to present a multiple document interface.
Besides, whether the tab bar is above or below the address bar is mostly cosmetic. But it makes sense to do it the way Opera does it, since the address bar is specific to, and belongs to, each specific page you are viewing.
Would it not be even strange if creationism would not be mentioned at all in schools, especially seeing how hot it is as an issue as such?
Mention it when learning about history or sociology. It is not a hot issue in science. Evolution has complete scientific consensus. Only a few nutjobs reject it.
She was speaking about how she thought how both sides should be debated, which I think is a good thing, since such a debate would surely bring out many interesting issues on the nature of science and knowledge themselves that students would be well served by understanding better.
THe problem is that there are not two sides here. Or should you teach/"debate" the flat earth in geology class? Holocaust denial in history class? Shouldn't that time instead be spent on teaching actual science, geology and history? Teaching superstition and misinformation is a bad idea.
As for teaching creationism in science classes or sociology classes, I just didn't think it seemed as if she had considered that part of the issue at all. While one could argue that she should have, it's not really that important a detail in this context, and as long as she realizes that and leaves the important decisions to better suited people, I don't think there's anything wrong with her staying ignorant on that particular point.
What's wrong is that she opens up Pandora's Box. If you allow this kind of thing, creationists will abuse and exploit it to push their religion on other people
Slashdot Mirror
The designer just happened to insert the same ERVs in the same positions in humans and chimps? And in equivalent places in other life forms that just happen to match the exact predictions made by Evolution?
But that's not what this is. This is more of the same minor flaws appear in all engines.
Oh, we know what ERVs are, and what function they serve.
Computer models? You really ARE ignorant!
It is not an attack to point out the fact that your argument is a straw man.
They are not e-coli when they are completely different and don't have the characteristics of e-coli.
No, it does not. ERVs, transitional fossils, nylonase, etc. all contradict creationism.
False. One takes all facts into accounts, makes true predictions and has practical applications. Creationism has NONE of these.
First of all, your quotes are irrelevant to the point of this. The point here is what ERVs are. What they show.
Secondly, you are mistaking intellectual honesty for somethign else. Just because science doesn't deal with the absolutes of irrational religion (science is always tentative), it does not make assumptions. Please educate yourself, as you are clearly ignorant of what science really is.
Just as I thought, you are completely ignorant of Evolution. ERVs are not interesting because they "became a different life form". ERVs are interesting because they once infected the germ cells of a life form, which then passed the virus down through the generations.
Here's a video for you to educate yourself. From the video description:
"Endogenous Retroviruses (ERVs) are the relics of ancient viral infections preserved in our DNA. The odd thing is many ERVs are located in exactly the same position on our genome and the chimpanzee genome. There are two explanations for the perfectly matched ERV locations. Either it is an unbelievable coincidence that viruses just by chance inserted in exactly the same location in our genomes, or humans and chimps share a common ancestor. It was our common ancestor that was infected, and we both inherited the ERVs. ERVs providence the closest thing to a mathematical proof for evolution. And remember, ERVs are just one of the millions of FACTS that support the theory of evolution.
Your ignorance leads you to believe that all science is, is "laboratory experiments". No wonder your conclusions are so weird.
Actually, a new strand has been observed to appear which has lost the key thing that makes e-coli e-coli. Which means that they are e-coli no more.
More straw men. Typical of desperate creationists.
What do you mean by "blind process"? You mean as in "blind chance"?
No, it has not. Again, Evolution is biology, nothing else.
Evolution is based solely on facts. Like all other scientific theories, Evolution has moved from being a hypothesis (not an assumption, but a possible explanation to be tested) to a theory (fully supported by all known facts, makes true predictions, etc.).
It is not an assumption. It is what all facts point to.
This is another straw man.
Again you need to stop spewing out nonsense. Please educate yourself.
And again, you really, really need to educate yourself.
E-mail is special because I bear the cost, and because there's no real physical limit as to how many the spammer can send.
That's great and all, but it's got nothing to do with spam. Free speech does not involve aiming a thousand megaphones at someone's head and blurting out ads, drowning out most other things.
Because I pay for someone else flooding me with crap.
This is not a free speech issue.
Why?
He said that the game will never come out. Sounds more like he has access to unreleased software than anything else.
Oh, that one debate he didn't participate in? Yeah, I guess that nullifies the record 21 debates he had with Clinton!
Ah, it was only in that particular debate that the REAL issues could have been presented? All the 12 other debates were just nonsense, obviously.
To republicans, words do not speak for themselves. Words are spun.
Or maybe he wasn't interested in playing the dishonest games of wannabe fascists.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in God, for whatever reason. Just like someone who does not believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy.
Evolution is biology. It deals with life on earth. Anything else is just your imagination (or ignorance).
This is false. You are clearly deeply ignorant about science. Or dishonest.
I recommend that you educate yourself instead of spouting nonsense.
Your straw men are truly pathetic.
What others are using it for is irrelevant to the Theory of Evolution, which deals with biology.
I'm afraid you are mistaken. Things like endogenous retroviruses can only be explained using the evolutionary model.
Science is based on consensus. Furthermore, when all authorities in a field agree, one can be certain that the science is indeed solid. Then you have the few loonies who aren't even in a relevant field who "question" Evolution with straw men and misinformation.
Oh, but you are mistaken. That lone voice in the wilderness would have to do actual science to get anywhere. Unfortunately, creationists are unable (or unwilling) to bother.
No, a model for explaining something is one which matches the actual facts, regardless of the person's beliefs and worldview. Evolution, for example, is accepted by religious scientists as well as scientists without a religion. These have drastically different, and one might say opposite, beliefs and worldviews. But that is irrelevant, since the explanation doesn't rely on any specific beliefs.
That's just dishonest of you. You claimed that "an atheist will believe that the universe is a result of random chance". This is the straw man.
Actually, creationists are merely misrepresenting the dating methods used by scientists. Please stop lying, creationist.
The problem is: Creationists are wrong. They have no understanding how we date things. They just make empty straw man claims.
No. Only Evolution is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
This is false. These are extremely few compared to the total number of scientists.
Because of what the facts tell us.
I agree. The OP mistakenly referred to Evolution as a "belief", when it is in fact not a belief. It is a model for explaining what we observe in nature.
No, this is a straw man.
No. Only one model is supported by all the data and contradicted by none.
No, this is not necessarily the case. Especially in a "pre-universe" state, the laws of physics were not necessarily as they are today.
Indeed.
Video 1
Video 2
Video 3
Either the universe is really, really old, or God has fooled us.
The Bible is full of genocide, rape, slaughter, etc. And God condones and even performs it himself.
Actually, we have observed actual speciation. And especially among bacteria we see new proteins enzymes appearing (and if there's no limit to how proteins can change, there's no limit to how the entire organism can change).
If they do, they make it perfectly clear. It's called intellectual honesty. If they make an assumption, they explain why they made that assumption, what the weaknesses are, and exactly how that assumption is supported, and how it could be wrong.
Oh, they certainly do. Which is why the scientific process is so useful. You don't have to rely on a single person's claims. That person must back up his claims with actual data and research that can be duplicated by others.
This is obviously completely wrong. If there is something we cannot understand, we keep trying to figure it out. That's why we have science. If there's anything that summarily dismisses anything it's the "we can't explain it, so we'll assume that God did it and ignore the problem" crowd.
Here's where you get it wrong again. The thing with science is that it has worked nicely so far, so accepting scientific consensus is the best thing to do for us normal people who don't have all the expertise. You seem to believe in some massive scientific conspiracy and coverup just because the evidence doesn't support your world view, but science has brought us all these useful things like technology, medicine, etc. Even if you don't believe in an objective reality, you should at least accept that science makes more sense than blind religious faith because it has been working fine until now.
You seem to equate the acceptance of scientific consensus and religious faith, which is completely off the mark. Scientific consensus is based on verified facts. Religious faith is based on blind belief in something.
Not as much as having the address bar closer to the page than the tab bar, since the address bar "belongs" to the page.
No, that comparison is obviously invalid. You can't even see if it it isn't in in front of the driver's seat.
The tab represents the page, and the address bar reflects, and is associated with, the current page. It changes when you move to a different page (or even when moving between fragment links in the same page).
As I wrote in another comment:
Tabbed browsing is MDI :)
MDI is simply a multiple document interface. "Tabs" are merely one way to present a multiple document interface.
Besides, whether the tab bar is above or below the address bar is mostly cosmetic. But it makes sense to do it the way Opera does it, since the address bar is specific to, and belongs to, each specific page you are viewing.
Tabbed browsing is MDI :)
MDI is simply a multiple document interface. "Tabs" are merely one way to present a multiple document interface.
Besides, whether the tab bar is above or below the address bar is mostly cosmetic. But it makes sense to do it the way Opera does it, since the address bar is specific to, and belongs to, each specific page you are viewing.
You can get a lot more clear than "teach it"? :)
Mention it when learning about history or sociology. It is not a hot issue in science. Evolution has complete scientific consensus. Only a few nutjobs reject it.
THe problem is that there are not two sides here. Or should you teach/"debate" the flat earth in geology class? Holocaust denial in history class? Shouldn't that time instead be spent on teaching actual science, geology and history? Teaching superstition and misinformation is a bad idea.
What's wrong is that she opens up Pandora's Box. If you allow this kind of thing, creationists will abuse and exploit it to push their religion on other people