Undersea cableing is very easy. Theya re talking about situating these guys up to/around 1000 miles out to sea.
They also will not need much of an anchor either. You are essentially making a very BAD sailboat. Wind doesn't typically have that much force, but it is consistant. Therefore a relativly small anchor (one that can be hauled up as they mentioned) is all you would need for normal operations. Plus they mentioned being able to let out line for the anchor and bring it in again. Therefore if there is a sudden gust you can play out line based on the tension on the anchor them reel it back in after....minimal energy use
As for maint. that is a mjor reason they are using the horizontal style windmills rather than verticle ones. We know much more about the horizontal ones and they are very low maint. Plus the coast guard wouldn't maintain them unless the Government owned the platforms (like they own the bouy's) and were making money off of them OR they were hired by the owners. Actually it would be MUCH cheaper to simply own a boat with a single maint. crew and send them out to service all several hundered platforms. So one ship, one crew.
As far as the admitidly minimal information in the article goes, it seems like a well thought out and practicle plan. All the technical problems seem to have been addressed, the only remaining problems are financial....can they make money at it?
yes I know the verse...that is actually the exact verse I was thinking of. The bible clearly states that killing a fetus is NOT the same as killing a person.
If you kill a fetus in ancient Isreal you where fined money based on what the husband decided. If you killed a person you were immediatly stoned to death.
Obviously god's law dictates that fetus' are not fully human lives, although they do have value.
Exodus 21:22...I used this in my example...this shows that god does not consider a fetus to be a human being. Otherwise he would not "be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" he instead would have been immediatly stoned.
Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-14, Luke 1:13-15 based upon the verse in exodus these now show that god new/formed/ordained these people from BEFORE they were even people. That seems a much more dramatic and meaningful interpretation while still maintaining the exact same essence and not contradicting other passages.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21...throughout the first 5 books we see time and again that parents have absolute dominion over thoes children that live in their house. Once a son moves on he is his own man. Once a daughter marries she is the responsibility of her husband. But we also see that the parents are responible for the actions of their children. They must redress any injuries/crimes the children cause. The ONLY escape from this for the parents is to have the child publicly executed. So this verse could be talking about an adult if the person still lived under his parents roof...but more than likley the guy would just move out rather than get executed so this had to most likely have been used on children.
I am a biologist. I work with adult stem cells on a daily basis. The truth embryonic stem cells (ESC) are as much like adult stem cells (ASC) as neurons are like red blood cells. They do two completly different things. Now it is true that ESC can become ASC, that doesn't mean that ASC can readily become ESC.
The goal of ESC research is to STOP the use of embryos for research. No one wants to use an embryo to cure disease. The goal is to learn enough about the ESC's and ASC's to turn YOUR ASC's into ESC's to treat diseases in you.
As far as christians not being anti science I couldn't agree with you more. As I said in the grandparent, I am a very strong christian, but I am also a scientist. To go back to the bible, we are instructed time and again to explore gods creation. Christianity is actually a CALL to science.
Simple...self sustaining life with only supportive care.
If you put a fertilized egg (or skin cell for that matter) on the sidewalk the survivability is measured in seconds. I say it becomes a human being when it IS outside the womb with simply supportive technology (i.e. incubater, ventalator, antibiotics, and I will even go as far as to say surgery).
If you draw the line anywhere else then the skin cell now has all the rights of a full human being.
Please think about the consequences of making embryos full human beings. Homo sapiens have one of the highest miscarriage rates of any species. Even couples that easily have children average 6 months of trying....that means 5 misscariages (even if the mother doesn't realize it) for every successful pregnancy. Now if the newly fertilized egg has all the rights of a full human the mother is in real trouble.
Say she and her husband have a falling out....she walks through a cloud of smoke leaving a building...she has a misscarriage...husband now has her charged with manslaughter, child endangerment etc. and she spends the rest of her life in jail.
While I admit that is an extreme example, it is still the logical end result of making a single cell a full fledged human being.
That would be like getting a heart transplant and having the doctors replace it with an extra bicep...it may look the same on the surface but it isn't going to pump much blood.
Adult stem cells are a completly different thing and cannot be used interchangebly. Actually the goal of using embryonic stem cells is to learn enough to beable to ture adult cells into true stem cells. No reputable scientist wants to use fetal embryonic stem cells for long term treatment...we want to use your cells to treat you as an adult.
So the egg and sperm were dead before you tossed them in a test tube together?
The truth is, life is a continuous chain that extends back billions of years. This will be true regardless of what happens in a clinic.
While I agree with you on some parts, I think our overall positions are very different. I agree that the organism created by the combining of an egg and sperm starts at conception. I disagree on the point that it is a human life....
It is certainly a human cell. It has the full compliment of genes...but so does a skin cell. If you took a skin cell and put it in a petri dish would you call it a human life? Would you debate over it? Would some people kill over it? A single skin cell is fully capable of becoming a full grown human being through cloning. In fact there is only really a single step difference between growing up a skin cell and growing up a fertilized egg....
On top of that, the bible disagrees with your asertion that human life begins at conception. There are many different refferences to life begining with the first breath. Therefore human life only begins at birth... Plus the bible very clearly states that an unborn fetus is NOT the same as a child after birth. If you accidentally kill a child you could be stoned...if you accidentally caused a miscarriage you couldn't.
As a strong christian I take great offence when people use the religion to justify everything.
The bible is actually PRO "abortion."
There are about a half dozen places in the bible that states life begins with the first breath...therefore according to the bible and christianity, abortion is NOT murder because the embryos are not human.
The only place that specifically talks about abortion in the bible states very clearly that killing a fetus does not warrant the same punishment as killing someone who has already been born.
Plus the parents right to choose is very strongly maintained. Parents were allowed to take unrully children and have them stoned to death if they wanted.
While it is absolutly true that Jesus exemplified children, you must read these lines in context. A child in Jesus's time was someone who has already been born...NOT a pregnant woman.
Now, I will be the first to say that in general abortion is bad. I think we should do everything possible to make abortion unnecessary. This however does not include banning the practice. If you ban it people will just go underground to get it and you will have a lot of women dying from massive hemorages.
So, if you want to object to stem cell research, fine. But you must do so without the assistance of the bible.
Personally I see no real ethical problem. A fertilized cell is the property of the parents and no one else. It is NOT a human. As it gets closer and closer to birth it becomes human...but as a single or small cluster of cells it is no more special than a cheek swab..(which btw can now be used to creat a person through the use of cloning).
Embryos deffinetly have value and should be respected but not as a human being.
Thank you, you have presented my point in a far better way than I did.
My pouint is exactly "Thus the real situation is that our need for Jesus is not "DESTROYED" by our belief in a Creator, but rather made all the more apparent by our rejection of the evidence we see all around us."
If we did not have to reject what our eyes see than we could never make a leap of faith and come to know christ.
As far as your quote goes please read the few versus before and after. You will see that Paul is talking about rejecting God in favor of other gods. A very common refrain through out the old testament.
In that specific quote (and suround text) my favorite section is: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" Since faith requiers beleif without external evidence, a "faith" based on external evidence is flawed and false.
I suggest you read the other response I left. I admit I wrote my first post in haste and I was not very complete.
Actually, much to the contrary. My argument is simply a restatment of a parable from Jesus. Specifically Matthew 13:3-9.
My point is very clear. Salvation only comes through faith in christ. Now let us look at what that means. Faith specifically. Perhaps this link will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith.
Having direct evidence of the existence of god PRECLUDES the possibility of "faith." Knowing that god exists means there is no risk in following the teachings of christ. Note that I said the teachings of christ not faith. From outward impressions these people are christians even though they are not saved. This is exactly what Matthew 13:5 represents.
Faith absolutly requiers a leap WITHOUT any supporting evidence. I know from my own salvation that the very instant that I made this leap I was provided all the "evidence" I needed.
Anyone who needs ID to have faith does not know Christ and anyone who knows Christ has no need for ID.
As far as ID, let me be more specific. I am absolutly certain that god designed the universe and us in particular. How else could we have been created "in his image." I simply point out that god needed to do this in a manner that hides his existance. God appears to have used a process called evolution.
My concern with ID is not the theory itself. I have read a large number of books regarding it and I find it an interesting but flawed (scientifically) theory, if you would like to discuss the merits of the theory I would be happy to in further messages. My concern is based exclusivly on how this theory affects the church. If people decide they beleive in christ because of ID they will be far less likley to make the actual leap of faith and come to know him. These people will not be saved and there incorrect understanding of what christianity actually means will lead them to hurt the church through thier actions...bigotry etc. I sadly have run across a great many of these.
As per my title, I meant to state that ID prevents people from coming to a saving knowledge of christ and therefore leads to extremist "christians." However I actually forgot to write that in my first post....hit enter too fast.
So let me reiterate. It sounds like we both agree upon the need of faith for salvation. However my point is that breadcrumbs and signposts eliminate the possibility of faith.
What I find really facinating is that people who support ID never think about what it would mean to christianity.
Christianity is based one one point of faith and a simple moral code.
The point of faith: Jesus is the son of god and died so that we may live and that only faith through him will you know god. (John 14:6 and many others)
The simple moral code: Wouldn't it be great if everyone was nice to each other.
Now ID says that god HAS to exist because we can know about him by seeing evidence of him in the universe and in biology.
This simple thing DESTROYS christianity. Jesus is no longer needed and his sacrifice is minimized. If ID becomes dogma the christianity of Jesus will die along with evolution.
Christianity actual requiers a naturalistic method for the creation of the universe. Without the element of doubt faith would be meningless.
Does it fall apart in pico seconds, seconds, days, weeks, months, years, eons??
Depending on how hard they are to make (assuming you can make them) perhads it is GOOD that they fall apart in a few seconds. That lets you warp a ship out of the system without upsetting all the orbits etc.
I suggest you review the two messages I last sent. I specificly mentioned cross species breeding. These animals are extrodinarily interesting but it doesn't matter....they are not sucessful species. Mules (used as a generic term here) are almost universaly sterile. The three ocassions the have not be sterile the offspring have. Mules can only be created when the two parent species have the same number of chromosomes with roughly the same size. This allows the cell to match them up and split them correctly during mitosis. This is why only very closly related species can do this....however these mules are not an example of hybridization because the hybridized animal can't breed. Roses and other plants are actually samples of this. A show rose is extremly fagile and cannot seed. this is why rose growers were held in such high honor in the field. The only reason it was at all succesful was that man came along and cloned the rose (by taking clipings and repotting not biochemically) Most roses as we know them would not exist in nature....the same goes for Mules, Wolphins, tiglons and Ligers. It is important to note that these have NEVER been seen in the wild. Most actually require invitro-fertilization or some similar advanced technique.
Now as per your other comments...
Salamanders are amphibians. This means they spend a significant amount of time in water, especially marshy waters. This leads to a high level of fossilization (or in this case pseudo phosolization because there hasn't been enough time to complete the process). We have extracted DNA from these remains and can date the migration with a good degree of accuracy.
#1 the remains on the northern side of the valley are 300,000 years older than the oldest remains on the southern side of the valley. Also I misspoke. I had intended to say before European people arrived. Actually Salamanders probably came over the land bridge with Native American ancestors....but the point is still applicable.
#2 there is amble geological evidence that Death Valley has been essentially stable for several million years. It is a low point in a geologically stable area hidden behind a very high mountain range that has been there for 10 million years+.
#3 We know from studies of modern species that sub-species all have almost identical lifestyles. The only differences are typically body size, coloration patterns, fur thickness (although salamanders don't need to worry about this;-)) etc. But all subspecies typically live in the same manner. Dogs hunt in packs regardless of the sub-species (breed). Chipmunks live in trees. Californian Salamanders live in marshy waters. Therefore if there was a subspecies that embodies all the extra traits seen in the decendant species we should see fossils at roughly the same rate as all the other species. We have yet to discover a single sample. While this is not solid proff it does allow us to calculate the maximum number of animals that represent this subspecies...I beleive it is now below 500. Basically If there were more than 500 animals we should have found a sample by now. This number is so small compared to the otehr strains that the genetic impact of crossbreeding cannot explain the current dominance of the genes. This is why I spoke of teleporting all the subspecies that ever existed.
#4 I actually don't know if they are biochemically able to mate. But a breeding practice/preference is just as strong a wall against cross breeding as biochemistry. Part of the species deffinition is interbreeding. If they don't interbreed when given the opportunity then they aren't a single species. The tail species are in close proximity to each other and there is no evisence of direct cross breeding. They have been housed in the same quarters and they don't interbreed...you can even sprinkle Ethanol into the water and play some Kenny G and they won't interbreed. They are distinct species. Actually my other e
There is distinct evidence that the NORTHERN species is the oldest and that the whole group moved south NOT north.
All the evidence shows that the closest common ancestor between the western and easter branches is the northern group which does not have all the genetic information that exists in the the two southern branches. Actually the Western and Eastern groups have genetic info that is not represented ANYWHERE else in the salamander family.
The only hybridization that could have created this is if a totaly different species also moved south with the northern species and then interbred and died out. That is certainly a possibility however there is NO evidence that this species ever existed. Therefore it is far MORE likly that this is a case of evolution rather than a mysterious case of all the salamanders of a specific group that EVER lived getting teleported away leaving no evidence at all.
I have no information of a Korean salamander however there is no evidence that salamanders have crossed the pacific before man brought them and this ring species existed before man came to the new world.
Hybridization happens when two subspecies mate. This leads to a third "subspecies" with traits from both.
This absolutly requiers that the original groups are in fact the same species AND that they can breed together under natural conditions.
There are examples of related but non-identcal species breedings (the mule and tiglons) but these animals are sterile and therefore are not viable species. True hybridization can make some unusual animals/plants but they are all still the same species and therefore that is not a true example of genetic evolution.
However I now understand your confusion in the grandparent message. You invision a ring species as simply a hybridization of temporarily isolated groups. This certainly happens but it is not a ring species. We will use the californian salamander as an example. It started in the northern section of the state and moved south. When the species ran into death valley it split and migrated down both sides. Because the salamanders couldn't cross the valley they progressed along seperate lines of evolution. As the two groups moved south over about 300,000 years they diverged more and more. By the time they got to the bottom of the valley and the two lines met, they were unable to breed and therefore counted as seperate species. In addition they are not able to breed with the original species that still lived on the northern edge of the valley. However they could still breed with the neighbors to the north and so genes can go back to the progenitor species and then onto the other side. Now we know there is evolution here because of the unique genetic code in the tail species. While the genetic code CAN move backwords it is a very slow process, even slower than the original evolution, therefore there is still distinct genetic differences. But both these tail species have different genes that do not occur in any other species in the ring. This novel information proves that this is not a case of hybridization but rather an excellent example of evolution in action.
I hope this helps you understand the system better now.
Also I might add....just because things evolve back does not mean it is the same species.
There are a wide range of body plans that are equally efficient (the color schemes of ciclids) and there are some body schemes which are natually more efficient (vultures and Andies condor).
The condor and the vultures are absolutly different species but looking at them you would think they are identical.
As far as the ciclids go, once they have evolved a new color the genome has completly lost the ability to make other colors....the only way back is the re-evolve the old color.
Even though the great-great-great-etc-parents were that color, it is a novel color for that fish and therefore it is a mutation and an example of evolution.
The same goes for the finches. The beak shapes happened to be the most pronounced difference and that is why the drawings were included however even now thoes birds are acknowledged and different species. They were defined as different species because they don't interbreed NOT because their beaks were different.
A good example of this is the sub-species of dolphin that lives in bay's. They eat different foods, live in very different communities and even look different enough that people first thought they were a different species....BUT they also freely interbreed with ocean dwelling dolphins and therefore are the same species.
Also, we have not been discussing the actual genetic differences between the different sections of the ring.
Using the Californian salamander as an example, there most deffinetly IS novel genetic information created.
On the western branch the most southern species has genetic information that does not exist in any other sub-species of the ring. The only way this could happen is if the information was created as the species "evolved".
Your theory only has merit if the progentior species are more complex than the decendants....which they aren't.
Therefore the ciclids have rapidly speciated. Even a small color change will genetically isolate them from the rest of the genepool and therefore they are a species.
This happens to be an extrodinary simple case, but still true. The anti-evolution group is the one trying to redefine species to make this observed fact not mean anything. They are trying to say that because you could artificially mate two different colored ciclids, and get a viable offspring, they must be the same species. Even though they would never mate in the real world....this is a redeffinition of species.
Now I will admit ring species are an unusual case...however they are directly predicted by Darwin's theory of evolution and thus even if you decide the whole group is actually one species, it still proves evolution.
BTW, I was quoting the Journal of Molecular Bio. You can do a pubmed search and come up with several thousand articles about ciclids..I didn't even know National Geographic talked about them...what issue was it? I'd kinda like to see it.
Current string theory/quantum mechanics/essentially all cutting edge physics predicts the existence of negative energy.
Negative energy also includes negative time/ FTL particles/ space warp/ all the interesting Sci Fi possibilities you can think of. We know negative energy exists in small doses in lasers and gravity waves. Extrapolating from proven theories if you put enough of this negative energy in one place a bubble will form that seperates itself from the universe.
Hawkings was trying to show (I don't have the math background to decide if he succeded or not) that our current universe started in the same way.
A ring species is called such because it "rings" an uninhabitable area with subspecies that often cannot interbreed with the other side but can breed backwords and get to the other side.
A more appropriate name would be a Fork species...however due to the geographical convergence of the tips of the migration the actual distribution of the animals looks like a ring.
A ring species is simply a sample of evolution in which the ancestor species are still alive.
There is no biological or physical way that two divergent evolutionary pathways can reconnect into a single breeding species.
A species like you describe could only occur through direct human genetic manipulation and not through and evolutionary/naturalistic way.
Actually a ring species is an animal that split it's migration. At the end of the migration the two (sub) species are unable to interbreed and therefore can be defined as seperate species. However each animal can still breed with the animal one step back in the migration path. Therefore while the end of the ring counts as different species there is still gene transfer between the two through the intermediate species.
Evolution has been directly observed beyond all reasonable doubt.
We have directly witnesed the creation of new species (African Ciclids being a great example) and we have samples of animals AND all their ancestor species all living together (ring species).
Evolution has been proven. It is only called a "theory" because the people who don't like it put up a fuss. By any measure of science, evloution is a law.
do a swab test on organic vs conventional food. Then culture the results. You will find a significantly higher count on organic as well as several agressive e-coli and other disease causing agents.
While you are right that all food should be washed and cooked properly, I personally have chosen to consume a slightly elevated level of herbcides rather than bacteria.
Cost is more complicated than simple supply and demand. You also have to factor in the actual cost of production. If the market price is below the produciton price no one will do it. Conventional farms lower production costs through chemistry...organic farmers don't have that option. Economics of scale will help a tiny bit but not much.
Organic foods by thier very nature are more expensive and will ALWAYS be more expensive...
As far as farming subsidies, both organic and conventional growers are subsidized at roughly the same level. Conventional growers get 99% of the money because they grow 99% of the food.
The only reason this planet can currently support 6 billion people is BECAUSE of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
You are correct, plants will grow without treatment. They grew in the wild before domestication and most species can grow there now. To "grow" plants need dirt (sometimes even very poor dirt), air, water and light.
The difference is efficiency. Organic farms produce a fraction of the output modern farms do. This at a dramactically larger man-hour investment PLUS a higher risk of food poisoning.
I am not debating the morality or wisdom of modern farming. It certainly has it's faults. A big one being monocultured crops which tend to be more seceptible to disease (organic farms have similar problems although not to the same extent) not to mention environmental issues.
Right now the choices are buy cheper food that has treatments or buy more expensive food with extra bacteria. Personally I go with the first, mainly because I am cheap, but others may decide differently.
Slashdot Mirror
At full speed we can' build things fast enough to react to light.
So we slow it down enough to make the equipment possible. Then as we get better at it we speed the light back up in later models.
Umm, you did READ the article right?
Undersea cableing is very easy. Theya re talking about situating these guys up to/around 1000 miles out to sea.
They also will not need much of an anchor either. You are essentially making a very BAD sailboat. Wind doesn't typically have that much force, but it is consistant. Therefore a relativly small anchor (one that can be hauled up as they mentioned) is all you would need for normal operations. Plus they mentioned being able to let out line for the anchor and bring it in again. Therefore if there is a sudden gust you can play out line based on the tension on the anchor them reel it back in after....minimal energy use
As for maint. that is a mjor reason they are using the horizontal style windmills rather than verticle ones. We know much more about the horizontal ones and they are very low maint. Plus the coast guard wouldn't maintain them unless the Government owned the platforms (like they own the bouy's) and were making money off of them OR they were hired by the owners. Actually it would be MUCH cheaper to simply own a boat with a single maint. crew and send them out to service all several hundered platforms. So one ship, one crew.
As far as the admitidly minimal information in the article goes, it seems like a well thought out and practicle plan. All the technical problems seem to have been addressed, the only remaining problems are financial....can they make money at it?
I say let them try!
yes I know the verse...that is actually the exact verse I was thinking of. The bible clearly states that killing a fetus is NOT the same as killing a person.
If you kill a fetus in ancient Isreal you where fined money based on what the husband decided. If you killed a person you were immediatly stoned to death.
Obviously god's law dictates that fetus' are not fully human lives, although they do have value.
Exodus 21:22...I used this in my example...this shows that god does not consider a fetus to be a human being. Otherwise he would not "be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine" he instead would have been immediatly stoned.
Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 139:13-14, Luke 1:13-15 based upon the verse in exodus these now show that god new/formed/ordained these people from BEFORE they were even people. That seems a much more dramatic and meaningful interpretation while still maintaining the exact same essence and not contradicting other passages.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21...throughout the first 5 books we see time and again that parents have absolute dominion over thoes children that live in their house. Once a son moves on he is his own man. Once a daughter marries she is the responsibility of her husband. But we also see that the parents are responible for the actions of their children. They must redress any injuries/crimes the children cause. The ONLY escape from this for the parents is to have the child publicly executed. So this verse could be talking about an adult if the person still lived under his parents roof...but more than likley the guy would just move out rather than get executed so this had to most likely have been used on children.
I am a biologist. I work with adult stem cells on a daily basis. The truth embryonic stem cells (ESC) are as much like adult stem cells (ASC) as neurons are like red blood cells. They do two completly different things. Now it is true that ESC can become ASC, that doesn't mean that ASC can readily become ESC.
The goal of ESC research is to STOP the use of embryos for research. No one wants to use an embryo to cure disease. The goal is to learn enough about the ESC's and ASC's to turn YOUR ASC's into ESC's to treat diseases in you.
As far as christians not being anti science I couldn't agree with you more. As I said in the grandparent, I am a very strong christian, but I am also a scientist. To go back to the bible, we are instructed time and again to explore gods creation. Christianity is actually a CALL to science.
Simple...self sustaining life with only supportive care.
If you put a fertilized egg (or skin cell for that matter) on the sidewalk the survivability is measured in seconds. I say it becomes a human being when it IS outside the womb with simply supportive technology (i.e. incubater, ventalator, antibiotics, and I will even go as far as to say surgery).
If you draw the line anywhere else then the skin cell now has all the rights of a full human being.
Please think about the consequences of making embryos full human beings. Homo sapiens have one of the highest miscarriage rates of any species. Even couples that easily have children average 6 months of trying....that means 5 misscariages (even if the mother doesn't realize it) for every successful pregnancy. Now if the newly fertilized egg has all the rights of a full human the mother is in real trouble.
Say she and her husband have a falling out....she walks through a cloud of smoke leaving a building...she has a misscarriage...husband now has her charged with manslaughter, child endangerment etc. and she spends the rest of her life in jail.
While I admit that is an extreme example, it is still the logical end result of making a single cell a full fledged human being.
Sorry, not the same thing.
That would be like getting a heart transplant and having the doctors replace it with an extra bicep...it may look the same on the surface but it isn't going to pump much blood.
Adult stem cells are a completly different thing and cannot be used interchangebly. Actually the goal of using embryonic stem cells is to learn enough to beable to ture adult cells into true stem cells. No reputable scientist wants to use fetal embryonic stem cells for long term treatment...we want to use your cells to treat you as an adult.
So the egg and sperm were dead before you tossed them in a test tube together?
The truth is, life is a continuous chain that extends back billions of years. This will be true regardless of what happens in a clinic.
While I agree with you on some parts, I think our overall positions are very different. I agree that the organism created by the combining of an egg and sperm starts at conception. I disagree on the point that it is a human life....
It is certainly a human cell. It has the full compliment of genes...but so does a skin cell. If you took a skin cell and put it in a petri dish would you call it a human life? Would you debate over it? Would some people kill over it? A single skin cell is fully capable of becoming a full grown human being through cloning. In fact there is only really a single step difference between growing up a skin cell and growing up a fertilized egg....
On top of that, the bible disagrees with your asertion that human life begins at conception. There are many different refferences to life begining with the first breath. Therefore human life only begins at birth... Plus the bible very clearly states that an unborn fetus is NOT the same as a child after birth. If you accidentally kill a child you could be stoned...if you accidentally caused a miscarriage you couldn't.
As a strong christian I take great offence when people use the religion to justify everything.
The bible is actually PRO "abortion."
There are about a half dozen places in the bible that states life begins with the first breath...therefore according to the bible and christianity, abortion is NOT murder because the embryos are not human.
The only place that specifically talks about abortion in the bible states very clearly that killing a fetus does not warrant the same punishment as killing someone who has already been born.
Plus the parents right to choose is very strongly maintained. Parents were allowed to take unrully children and have them stoned to death if they wanted.
While it is absolutly true that Jesus exemplified children, you must read these lines in context. A child in Jesus's time was someone who has already been born...NOT a pregnant woman.
Now, I will be the first to say that in general abortion is bad. I think we should do everything possible to make abortion unnecessary. This however does not include banning the practice. If you ban it people will just go underground to get it and you will have a lot of women dying from massive hemorages.
So, if you want to object to stem cell research, fine. But you must do so without the assistance of the bible.
Personally I see no real ethical problem. A fertilized cell is the property of the parents and no one else. It is NOT a human. As it gets closer and closer to birth it becomes human...but as a single or small cluster of cells it is no more special than a cheek swab..(which btw can now be used to creat a person through the use of cloning).
Embryos deffinetly have value and should be respected but not as a human being.
Thank you, you have presented my point in a far better way than I did.
My pouint is exactly "Thus the real situation is that our need for Jesus is not "DESTROYED" by our belief in a Creator, but rather made all the more apparent by our rejection of the evidence we see all around us."
If we did not have to reject what our eyes see than we could never make a leap of faith and come to know christ.
As far as your quote goes please read the few versus before and after. You will see that Paul is talking about rejecting God in favor of other gods. A very common refrain through out the old testament.
In that specific quote (and suround text) my favorite section is: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, 'He who through faith is righteous shall live.'" Since faith requiers beleif without external evidence, a "faith" based on external evidence is flawed and false.
I suggest you read the other response I left. I admit I wrote my first post in haste and I was not very complete.
Actually, much to the contrary. My argument is simply a restatment of a parable from Jesus. Specifically Matthew 13:3-9.
My point is very clear. Salvation only comes through faith in christ. Now let us look at what that means. Faith specifically. Perhaps this link will help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith.
Having direct evidence of the existence of god PRECLUDES the possibility of "faith." Knowing that god exists means there is no risk in following the teachings of christ. Note that I said the teachings of christ not faith. From outward impressions these people are christians even though they are not saved. This is exactly what Matthew 13:5 represents.
Faith absolutly requiers a leap WITHOUT any supporting evidence. I know from my own salvation that the very instant that I made this leap I was provided all the "evidence" I needed.
Anyone who needs ID to have faith does not know Christ and anyone who knows Christ has no need for ID.
As far as ID, let me be more specific. I am absolutly certain that god designed the universe and us in particular. How else could we have been created "in his image." I simply point out that god needed to do this in a manner that hides his existance. God appears to have used a process called evolution.
My concern with ID is not the theory itself. I have read a large number of books regarding it and I find it an interesting but flawed (scientifically) theory, if you would like to discuss the merits of the theory I would be happy to in further messages. My concern is based exclusivly on how this theory affects the church. If people decide they beleive in christ because of ID they will be far less likley to make the actual leap of faith and come to know him. These people will not be saved and there incorrect understanding of what christianity actually means will lead them to hurt the church through thier actions...bigotry etc. I sadly have run across a great many of these.
As per my title, I meant to state that ID prevents people from coming to a saving knowledge of christ and therefore leads to extremist "christians." However I actually forgot to write that in my first post....hit enter too fast.
So let me reiterate. It sounds like we both agree upon the need of faith for salvation. However my point is that breadcrumbs and signposts eliminate the possibility of faith.
What I find really facinating is that people who support ID never think about what it would mean to christianity.
Christianity is based one one point of faith and a simple moral code.
The point of faith: Jesus is the son of god and died so that we may live and that only faith through him will you know god. (John 14:6 and many others)
The simple moral code: Wouldn't it be great if everyone was nice to each other.
Now ID says that god HAS to exist because we can know about him by seeing evidence of him in the universe and in biology.
This simple thing DESTROYS christianity. Jesus is no longer needed and his sacrifice is minimized. If ID becomes dogma the christianity of Jesus will die along with evolution.
Christianity actual requiers a naturalistic method for the creation of the universe. Without the element of doubt faith would be meningless.
Ok, so a semi-classic wormhole is unstable....
Does it fall apart in pico seconds, seconds, days, weeks, months, years, eons??
Depending on how hard they are to make (assuming you can make them) perhads it is GOOD that they fall apart in a few seconds. That lets you warp a ship out of the system without upsetting all the orbits etc.
Ohh, one other point I forgot to mention.
True natural hybridization ALWAYS gives a subspecies that can still interbreed with the two parent species.
There has not been a single example of subspecies breeding that created a new and seperate group.
Since there are strains of califronian salamanders that cannot interbreed this cannot by true hybridization.
Pleasure to see you again :-)
;-)) etc. But all subspecies typically live in the same manner. Dogs hunt in packs regardless of the sub-species (breed). Chipmunks live in trees. Californian Salamanders live in marshy waters. Therefore if there was a subspecies that embodies all the extra traits seen in the decendant species we should see fossils at roughly the same rate as all the other species. We have yet to discover a single sample. While this is not solid proff it does allow us to calculate the maximum number of animals that represent this subspecies...I beleive it is now below 500. Basically If there were more than 500 animals we should have found a sample by now. This number is so small compared to the otehr strains that the genetic impact of crossbreeding cannot explain the current dominance of the genes. This is why I spoke of teleporting all the subspecies that ever existed.
I suggest you review the two messages I last sent. I specificly mentioned cross species breeding. These animals are extrodinarily interesting but it doesn't matter....they are not sucessful species. Mules (used as a generic term here) are almost universaly sterile. The three ocassions the have not be sterile the offspring have. Mules can only be created when the two parent species have the same number of chromosomes with roughly the same size. This allows the cell to match them up and split them correctly during mitosis. This is why only very closly related species can do this....however these mules are not an example of hybridization because the hybridized animal can't breed. Roses and other plants are actually samples of this. A show rose is extremly fagile and cannot seed. this is why rose growers were held in such high honor in the field. The only reason it was at all succesful was that man came along and cloned the rose (by taking clipings and repotting not biochemically) Most roses as we know them would not exist in nature....the same goes for Mules, Wolphins, tiglons and Ligers. It is important to note that these have NEVER been seen in the wild. Most actually require invitro-fertilization or some similar advanced technique.
Now as per your other comments...
Salamanders are amphibians. This means they spend a significant amount of time in water, especially marshy waters. This leads to a high level of fossilization (or in this case pseudo phosolization because there hasn't been enough time to complete the process). We have extracted DNA from these remains and can date the migration with a good degree of accuracy.
#1 the remains on the northern side of the valley are 300,000 years older than the oldest remains on the southern side of the valley. Also I misspoke. I had intended to say before European people arrived. Actually Salamanders probably came over the land bridge with Native American ancestors....but the point is still applicable.
#2 there is amble geological evidence that Death Valley has been essentially stable for several million years. It is a low point in a geologically stable area hidden behind a very high mountain range that has been there for 10 million years+.
#3 We know from studies of modern species that sub-species all have almost identical lifestyles. The only differences are typically body size, coloration patterns, fur thickness (although salamanders don't need to worry about this
#4 I actually don't know if they are biochemically able to mate. But a breeding practice/preference is just as strong a wall against cross breeding as biochemistry. Part of the species deffinition is interbreeding. If they don't interbreed when given the opportunity then they aren't a single species. The tail species are in close proximity to each other and there is no evisence of direct cross breeding. They have been housed in the same quarters and they don't interbreed...you can even sprinkle Ethanol into the water and play some Kenny G and they won't interbreed. They are distinct species. Actually my other e
The Eastern Branch also has unique genetic info.
= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1566201 1
There is distinct evidence that the NORTHERN species is the oldest and that the whole group moved south NOT north.
All the evidence shows that the closest common ancestor between the western and easter branches is the northern group which does not have all the genetic information that exists in the the two southern branches. Actually the Western and Eastern groups have genetic info that is not represented ANYWHERE else in the salamander family.
The only hybridization that could have created this is if a totaly different species also moved south with the northern species and then interbred and died out. That is certainly a possibility however there is NO evidence that this species ever existed. Therefore it is far MORE likly that this is a case of evolution rather than a mysterious case of all the salamanders of a specific group that EVER lived getting teleported away leaving no evidence at all.
I have no information of a Korean salamander however there is no evidence that salamanders have crossed the pacific before man brought them and this ring species existed before man came to the new world.
I suggest you check out an intor genetics book. That will give you a much better understanding of the differences between hybridization and evolution. Or if you already have a background I suggest doing a pubmed search for Ring Species. I found what looks like an interesting article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd
Please let me know if there is anything else you are not clear on.
I have.
Hybridization does not work in ring species.
Hybridization happens when two subspecies mate. This leads to a third "subspecies" with traits from both.
This absolutly requiers that the original groups are in fact the same species AND that they can breed together under natural conditions.
There are examples of related but non-identcal species breedings (the mule and tiglons) but these animals are sterile and therefore are not viable species. True hybridization can make some unusual animals/plants but they are all still the same species and therefore that is not a true example of genetic evolution.
However I now understand your confusion in the grandparent message. You invision a ring species as simply a hybridization of temporarily isolated groups. This certainly happens but it is not a ring species. We will use the californian salamander as an example. It started in the northern section of the state and moved south. When the species ran into death valley it split and migrated down both sides. Because the salamanders couldn't cross the valley they progressed along seperate lines of evolution. As the two groups moved south over about 300,000 years they diverged more and more. By the time they got to the bottom of the valley and the two lines met, they were unable to breed and therefore counted as seperate species. In addition they are not able to breed with the original species that still lived on the northern edge of the valley. However they could still breed with the neighbors to the north and so genes can go back to the progenitor species and then onto the other side. Now we know there is evolution here because of the unique genetic code in the tail species. While the genetic code CAN move backwords it is a very slow process, even slower than the original evolution, therefore there is still distinct genetic differences. But both these tail species have different genes that do not occur in any other species in the ring. This novel information proves that this is not a case of hybridization but rather an excellent example of evolution in action.
I hope this helps you understand the system better now.
Also I might add....just because things evolve back does not mean it is the same species.
There are a wide range of body plans that are equally efficient (the color schemes of ciclids) and there are some body schemes which are natually more efficient (vultures and Andies condor).
The condor and the vultures are absolutly different species but looking at them you would think they are identical.
As far as the ciclids go, once they have evolved a new color the genome has completly lost the ability to make other colors....the only way back is the re-evolve the old color.
Even though the great-great-great-etc-parents were that color, it is a novel color for that fish and therefore it is a mutation and an example of evolution.
The same goes for the finches. The beak shapes happened to be the most pronounced difference and that is why the drawings were included however even now thoes birds are acknowledged and different species. They were defined as different species because they don't interbreed NOT because their beaks were different.
A good example of this is the sub-species of dolphin that lives in bay's. They eat different foods, live in very different communities and even look different enough that people first thought they were a different species....BUT they also freely interbreed with ocean dwelling dolphins and therefore are the same species.
Also, we have not been discussing the actual genetic differences between the different sections of the ring.
Using the Californian salamander as an example, there most deffinetly IS novel genetic information created.
On the western branch the most southern species has genetic information that does not exist in any other sub-species of the ring. The only way this could happen is if the information was created as the species "evolved".
Your theory only has merit if the progentior species are more complex than the decendants....which they aren't.
A species is a group of genetically isolated interbreeding organisms.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=species
Therefore the ciclids have rapidly speciated. Even a small color change will genetically isolate them from the rest of the genepool and therefore they are a species.
This happens to be an extrodinary simple case, but still true. The anti-evolution group is the one trying to redefine species to make this observed fact not mean anything. They are trying to say that because you could artificially mate two different colored ciclids, and get a viable offspring, they must be the same species. Even though they would never mate in the real world....this is a redeffinition of species.
Now I will admit ring species are an unusual case...however they are directly predicted by Darwin's theory of evolution and thus even if you decide the whole group is actually one species, it still proves evolution.
BTW, I was quoting the Journal of Molecular Bio. You can do a pubmed search and come up with several thousand articles about ciclids..I didn't even know National Geographic talked about them...what issue was it? I'd kinda like to see it.
It is more than that...
Current string theory/quantum mechanics/essentially all cutting edge physics predicts the existence of negative energy.
Negative energy also includes negative time/ FTL particles/ space warp/ all the interesting Sci Fi possibilities you can think of. We know negative energy exists in small doses in lasers and gravity waves.
Extrapolating from proven theories if you put enough of this negative energy in one place a bubble will form that seperates itself from the universe.
Hawkings was trying to show (I don't have the math background to decide if he succeded or not) that our current universe started in the same way.
Not true....
A ring species is called such because it "rings" an uninhabitable area with subspecies that often cannot interbreed with the other side but can breed backwords and get to the other side.
A more appropriate name would be a Fork species...however due to the geographical convergence of the tips of the migration the actual distribution of the animals looks like a ring.
A ring species is simply a sample of evolution in which the ancestor species are still alive.
There is no biological or physical way that two divergent evolutionary pathways can reconnect into a single breeding species.
A species like you describe could only occur through direct human genetic manipulation and not through and evolutionary/naturalistic way.
Actually a ring species is an animal that split it's migration. At the end of the migration the two (sub) species are unable to interbreed and therefore can be defined as seperate species. However each animal can still breed with the animal one step back in the migration path. Therefore while the end of the ring counts as different species there is still gene transfer between the two through the intermediate species.
Evolution has been directly observed beyond all reasonable doubt.
We have directly witnesed the creation of new species (African Ciclids being a great example) and we have samples of animals AND all their ancestor species all living together (ring species).
Evolution has been proven. It is only called a "theory" because the people who don't like it put up a fuss. By any measure of science, evloution is a law.
do a swab test on organic vs conventional food. Then culture the results. You will find a significantly higher count on organic as well as several agressive e-coli and other disease causing agents.
While you are right that all food should be washed and cooked properly, I personally have chosen to consume a slightly elevated level of herbcides rather than bacteria.
Cost is more complicated than simple supply and demand. You also have to factor in the actual cost of production. If the market price is below the produciton price no one will do it. Conventional farms lower production costs through chemistry...organic farmers don't have that option. Economics of scale will help a tiny bit but not much.
Organic foods by thier very nature are more expensive and will ALWAYS be more expensive...
As far as farming subsidies, both organic and conventional growers are subsidized at roughly the same level. Conventional growers get 99% of the money because they grow 99% of the food.
The only reason this planet can currently support 6 billion people is BECAUSE of chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides.
You are correct, plants will grow without treatment. They grew in the wild before domestication and most species can grow there now. To "grow" plants need dirt (sometimes even very poor dirt), air, water and light.
The difference is efficiency. Organic farms produce a fraction of the output modern farms do. This at a dramactically larger man-hour investment PLUS a higher risk of food poisoning.
I am not debating the morality or wisdom of modern farming. It certainly has it's faults. A big one being monocultured crops which tend to be more seceptible to disease (organic farms have similar problems although not to the same extent) not to mention environmental issues.
Right now the choices are buy cheper food that has treatments or buy more expensive food with extra bacteria. Personally I go with the first, mainly because I am cheap, but others may decide differently.