taks

no, it does not say that. over and over again i tell you. you do not understand. we did not come from pond scum. we came from primates on the order of 6 million years ago. pond scum was 4.5 billion years ago. this is not difficult. many animals have language. that's a false statement. but wait a minute, now you've changed your tune... science does not agree or science is certain? which is evidence of... our evolution. other species failing to evolve as we have simply means they did not evolve. nothing more. why does every creature have to evolve the same way we did. also, your statement directly implies that none will in the future. that we cannot know. taks

again, you're putting the cart before the horse. you assume that such traits aren't part of evolution to refute the idea of evolution. also, not all traits that are passed on need be beneficial, they only need not be detrimental. we haven't found it, but we can trace it back pretty far. with an ever changing planet, we may not. i snipped your questions for brevity. lack of evidence for is not evidence against. these are some unanswered questions, and many may never be answered. the whole goal of science is to search for the answers. the problem with ID, however is that it throws its arms up and declares that it is god. that is not science. that is a cop out. again, anybody that claims evolution teaches origins is doing so incorrectly. you are correct that there is no evidence to support the soup theory, but it is the best guess going. and no, BBT has not been disproven. i can direct you to a few sites that discuss it heavily. evidence is mounting that it is flawed, however, but not enough to say "disproven." ID, on the contrary, stops as soon as a question cannot be answered. it simply says "god did it." by your own statement, it should be continuing to look for data to refute or support it, but it does not. yes, it does. it requires a creator, or god. it is not an observation, it is a belief in a higher power. an intelligent creator is untestable, and therefore not scientific. uh, suggesting a reason behind it is not an observation, it is a suggestion. observation means witnessing, not suggesting. because it requires belief in a creator, which cannot be tested. lack of testability rules out ID as a science. taks

again, BILLIONS of years before humans came around. humans did not come from pond scum. you're connecting the end directly to the beginning. i never said we weren't the most complex. i simply said that other species are nearly as complex. primates in particular. dolphins as well. some primates are self aware also. there always has to be one species that is the most complex, and we are it. again, i never said they were as complex, just nearly. and the term "infintely" with reference to complexity is incorrect. primates share 98% of our genetic material. humans differ within groups by about 1%. that other 1% is the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. we aren't infintely more complex, just 1% more. which doesn't really apply to anything we're debating. the fact that we have a psychology just allows us to guide our own evolution. diabetes is a perfect example. were it not for modern science, the defective genes would have died out long ago. no, it does not. evolution cotinues, but a given species in a given environment cannot experience evolutionary changes that are detrimental. if they do, they will not live long enough to carry on the detrimental change. that's not obvious at all. just because you believe it so does not make it so. no, it is not scientific. you're putting the cart before the horse. it is a circular argument. you have to assume there is a creator before the observation can be said to be evidence of god. classical fallacy w.r.t. claims of a deity. i know plenty of what i'm talking about. for that matter, two classes and an A on a paper does not make you any more an expert than me. both that you refer to are caused by the same thing: mutations in genes. sorry, but your understanding of what is going on is incorrect. you are attempting to state that the species forces its own evolution "i must survive, therefore i need to change this part of my body." that is not correct, or at least it is an oversimplification. again, certain traits appear in offspring that are either beneficial or not. if they are beneficial to continued survival, then said traits will be passed on to future generations. it is, in the end, still a result of a mutation. i've never said anything contrary to this. the idea of rapid speciation (well, rapid in geological terms) is a hole in evolution. that much is true. however, there are theories as to why such things happened, but they tend to not be discussed nearly as often as natural selection topics. evidence is still weak. that your paper got an A was strong evidence that you debated the argument correctly, not that you were correct. this is an appeal to authority, btw. also, evolution did not "create" life. those that teach "origins" are doing so incorrectly. i read your posts completely. and i stand by my assertions. taks edit: if anybody can figure out why my quotes aren't working in this one, please let me know. grrrr.

because the left side of things scares me even more. i would prefer it if there were some more libertarian (for lack of any other real party in the middle) candidates to vote for. from a corruption standpoint, both sides are despicable. however, the left favors higher taxes and social programs, which are actually contrary to the very civil liberties they claim to champion. given a choice, those that see economic decisions as i do get my vote. unfortunately, with an all republican house, senate and president, that little rule is invalidated. they're spending as much of my money as ever. it might actually be good to have a democratic president in cases like this simply because he/she'd have a hard time getting anything done (so would congress). this is part of the reason bill clinton had such good numbers (had hillary's health care bill gotten any traction, things would have been much bleaker, but then bush turns around and does pretty much the same thing). the next best choice from the dems is a bit of a control freak. taks

while your statement is in principle correct, you are misusing the terms proof and evidence. and, with the proof/evidence correction, this statement is now fundamentally flawed. science does not prove anything. it only provides evidence of a scientific theory. ID proponents are attempting to teach it without evidence, not without proof. and ID is not a scientific theory, it is just a theory. it cannot be tested and therefore, by definition, it is not science. and sorry to say, both evolution and BBT have boatloads of evidence in their favor and very little contrary. i do believe BBT will be revised significantly, however, but it will be more along the lines of extending newtonian physics to relative physics. this is a topic for another discussion. taks

i know that. now you're taking my reply out of context. it would be easier if we had actual facial expressions to view. taks

tough call. if he get's killed, he's a martyr, but he doesn't get to say anything. we'd have to put up with bad press (from fundamentalists and otherwise radical sorts) making claims that his death was planned all along. perhaps it would turn out ok. OTOH, if we captured him, they'd say the same thing about the already known outcome. it's almost lose-lose, but not having to put up with years of trials and his rants would be a good thing in the end. this of course assumes he really believes in his own message. some thought the same of saddam, yet he didn't off himself, either. OBL may just be another tyrant who wants to rule, which implies selfish motives, which implies he's not into taking his own life (given that he regularly sends his soldiers out to kill themselves, i'm inclined to believe he is a coward anyway). taks

good debate and all that! nice info hildegard. i'll remember to keep this bit tucked away for future reference. taks

Fear not, I have little doubt we'll be crossing swords again soon. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> oh sure. you and about 90% of the other... er, folks on the board. taks

i don't think we could really prove anything more than a relative "this is more of an impact over this"... nor have i ever seen anything indicating more or less one way or another. you are probably correct, but we'd both be hard pressed to show it quantitatively. that makes sense, but there's a lot of things about science that don't always make sense until you truly study them. gravity is the one that always pops into my mind (heck, study it and it makes even less sense, hehe.) i have had high school biology, but that really isn't sufficient to be debating the nuances with any degree of certainty. i'm guessing a bit, too. taks

i think that goes without saying for just about anything. i agree we seriously need to improve our intelligence, which includes an increase in field operatives. granted, at this stage it is hard for them to get "inside," but their ranks are so decimated that any increase will be beneficial. relying solely on SIGINT technology does no good when AQ is using human courriers. i think this is a bit of a false delimma coupled with a straw man. it's not necessarily either or (false delimma/dichotomy, aka black and white fallacy). there may be a bit of both and there's a lot of evidence that a good portion of the insurgents are just POd fundamentalists that keep surging in from places like syria. it could also be new recruits (obviously a touch on the less intelligent side of average) that keep getting replaced by new recruits. the straw-man is saying that chasing AQ is the only reason we went in or why we're still there. to the former, there are many reasons, which is another debate. to the latter, whether or not the insurgency is AQ is irrelevant, as we need to quash it. japan took 7 years. man i hope iraq doesn't... this is probably true. he's too dug in to have any real day to day impact. however, his capture will be very symbolic, which has merit by itself. taks

i must point out that this is one of the rare opportunities for commissar and i to agree as well. taks

i am a scientist sir (er, madam?). i evaluate everything in my life based on scientific, mathematical and logical terms. it annoys the hell out of a lot of people (even my wife). but, i suppose, logic dictates that i should not care. added: this does not surprise me. rather, the role of environment is apparent in a lot of things. of course, it's chicken and egg, IMO. for example, things that grow fins for transportation aren't likely to evolve on land. but, the question becomes, is environment the cause of the evolution, or a result of what got selected? taks

classic appeal to authority fallacy. einstein was a physics expert. his views on faith are irrelevant. i also believe that this quote is false. just spread around by religious folk hoping to capitalize on the "see, even einstein believed in god" possibility. taks

but can man wipe out any population of insects? no. i doubt this is true. not all mutations will result in beneficial traits, but some do. it's a little random in that respect. trial and error has been mentioned, though there is no real attempt at doing trials. they happen, and there are results. some good, most bad. not sure how that's relevant. primates today are a different line. our earliest ancestor may have used tools, but some of his offspring "stayed in the trees" so to speak. keep in mind, the term "common ancestor" does not mean one couple spawned both man and ape. we may have evolved from a society of primates that no longer had trees for shelter. other colonies of the same primate lived in areas that still had trees. their evolutionary chain did not vary as much because the mutation that allowed them to walk upright was not beneficial. such creatures would simply fall out of the tree and die. on the edge of a newly forming desert, however, such a mutation would be extremely beneficial. taks

what part of this don't you get? humans did not come from pond scum. sheesh ender, this is pretty simple. furthermore, evolution is directed by what works where. other species evolved based on their environment, among other things. other species developed only as far as they needed to to survive. again, simple concept. it is also incorrect to say that other species don't have our level of complexity or even intelligence. au contraire. you're just assuming that we are leaps and bounds ahead of everything else, which is not true. this is a qualitative comparison between man, other primates, dolphins and many other mammals. we're just at the top of the list, but the differences in intelligence are extremely subtle. this is particularly true with primates. uh, your own statement refutes your supposition. given that insects have a far greater population, they kinda qualify as "the fittest" by default. evolution is about species surviving. nothing else. mutations that would change insects just don't survive. not true. evolution happens as a result of mutations in genes. when a gene mutates, if the mutation is not detrimental to the life of the carrier, it will be passed on. not all mutations result in new species. this is not a "flip of the switch" kind of thing. it is true, however, that certain mutations will create a greater chance of the creature carrying on its genes. that the parent species did not "survive" is not relevant since it may have taken a thousand generations before the offspring is not closely related to the original parent. nobody said we did. evolutionary biologist claim we evolved from common ancestors. get your facts straight before commenting about things you don't understand. i'm curious when holes in theories automatically started renouncing the possibility of science? communication theory had huge holes in it when bell did his thing with the phone. not so now. the fact that there are huge holes in it are precisely what makes this science. science is not about having all the answers. science is about the search for answers. no, it makes them science. science is nothing more than testing theories. if evidence supports the theory (which evolution has boatloads of), then it is assumed to be true (not proved as that is typically not possible). if evidence does not support the theory, then the theory is changed accordingly. this process continues ad infinitum. seriously, EA, you disappoint me. this is really the most close-minded thing you've ever said. taks

You don't think so? I think that's what has the religious right so worried, in all honesty. I think, provided we don't revert back too often to the sort of society that locks our Galileos up, humanity as a whole will eventually have more answers than it ever dreamed of. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, i don't. i think it is not only unprovable, but untestable. origins are part of what i'm talking about when i refer to ID not being science. neither are origins. even if we could reproduce origins in the lab, e.g. electric current through the pond scum creates single celled organisms, we'll never be able to make the jump to how it happened in the beginning or, more importantly, how the right combination of pond scum was present in the first place (if we do it, then we put the right combination there... who put ours there?). we may, however, run into some advanced society from space one day that tells us what happens. but that's not really high on my list of things to expect. i agree, however, that this is part of what has the religious right worried. but ID goes much deeper than that. like i said, read the wedge strategy and you'll see. they want all education to embrace GOD and his role in our lives. not good. taks

couldn't have said it better myself. amazing what a few facts mean. good post hildegard. taks

of course, then we'd be no (edit: replace worse with better, duh) than him and the rest of his fundamentalists. taks

we do see mutated changes in many things, particularly bacteria. the problem with this claim, however, is that our "scientific" history of evolution is only a few hundred years in the making. species evolving from other species takes on the order of hundreds of thousands of years, not a few hundred. and, as i noted above, the pond scum point is even further removed since that was 4 BILLION years ago. uh, american billion, so 4,000,000,000,000 years ago. the "jump" from a pool of amino acids to the proper proteins and then life is yet unexplained, and probably never will be. taks

i see... taks

a) show me b) if so, so what. there's a limit on when you can replace someone? for someone that "had that class," you sure like anecdote without fact or reason. taks

i mean, sheesh, just by math alone when #2 goes down, #3 is kinda promoted to #2 by default. simple concept, really. taks

we've only claimed to have killed the number 2 man in iraq once that i've heard. however, i'm curious why it is these guys are not allowed to replace positions after they've been vacated due to death? taks

evolution does not attempt to describe origins. anybody that claims it does, obviously does not understand the concepts. actually, while it is not specific to any one religion, it does not simply try to explain creation. ID is creationism in a new wrapper. the theory being put forth in various school districts was developed by the discovery institute. do a search on "the wedge strategy" and you'll see exactly what their motives are. they are not trying to explain origins, they are trying to replace ALL of evolution with creationism. they've backed away from this strategy, but only because of the bad press it was giving them and it runs counter to the "we're not trying to replace evolution" cries many ID supporters are clinging to. really, they are trying to replace it. only if a) you believe in a higher power and b) you ignore all of the evidence FOR evolution. ID is not science, it is faith. they are attempting to have this part of a school curriculum without any proof of their theory. the term "theory," btw, is misleading since it is NOT a scientific theory as it is NOT testable. sorry to the faithful, but either you have it or you don't, and there's no way to test it regardless. this statement is patently false. there is some evidence pointing away from the BBT, and i have read most of it, but not at all most. you obviously do not understand evolution. pond scum did not become human. pond scum spent billions of years working itself into a variety of other lifeforms before even thinking about humanity. humanity as it is is nothing more than an evolutionary blink of an eye (irreducible complexity and all) in evolutionary terms. nearly every mechanism now appearing in humans was well developed in some other creature looooong before even our remotest ancestors were around. taks