littlebillie

Popeye only said "I yam what I yam"....

arrh-arrh-arrh-arrh-arrh....

"Louis Pasteur did that. he proved that the idea of spontaneous generation was false. he took all the elements of life, put them in a closed container, and (with them dead) showed that they could not come to life on their own."

Please restate this to say that Pasteur proved that life would not spontaneously arrive in a container full of the materials he himself deemed necessary under conditions that did not in anywise reflect early earth as understood either Biblically OR scientifically. Basically, he eliminated one set of materials under one set of conditions... this does not prove any universal thing. If I spend a month just looking a block of granite in the rain - summer time, say, and no microscope - I might just miss erosion...

just a perspective...

"Could you be a little more specific? It's a pretty big leap from that small step to us. Why does bacteria remain bacteria in all laboratory experiments conducted? "

Let's think, just for a few moments, about the differences between a Petri dish and nature.

Now, one "tool" of evolution is mutation - a sponateous genetic change. Most mutations, for example, are not-viable - they can't live or compete for too long.

Once in a squillion times, there will arise a mutation that does more good than harm - let's call this the antiZorn mutation :-) The reason it does more good is that it helps the critter - whatever it is - in its particular environment, whether it allows it to digest cellulose or glow in the dark or whatever.

Just think about that Petri dish - the culture medium is designed FOR the bacteria, the light and heat is what it likes NOW. Much less chance for differentiation, but let's suppose we do get a successful mutation, that successfully establishes itself and takes over the dish.

Now we have a matter of categorization, definition and nomenclature. When we refer to strains of a particular bacteria that display certain genetic differences, we COULD say that in fact we have different species. Since this is a gray area, however, let's move on to the fruitflies mentioned elsewhere.

"5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated

female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating

(Dobzhansky 1972). " [from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html]

also take a look at [http://www.bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook/ControlGrowth/resistance.html] interesting!

regardless.

God - I believe - created a world we could understand. And He made it make sense. Evolution does not exist outside of God - it is as much a part of His toolkit (if you will) as wheel and kiln a ceramicist's. He created a Universe with gravity and Laws of Motion and Laws of Thermodynamics woven into its fabric - and I don't know who doubts these - so is it so hard to accept that there are divine Laws of Life? Who doubts photosynthesis, say?

If He is indeed eternal, then He's had plenty of time to plan, design and create. Why take that away from our understanding of Him?

"Oh littlebillie, you seem to have nothing to do with your time if you spend it looking for what I've said."

No problem at all - easisest thing! When I see something an egregious elitist has written, espcecially something annoying that puts down someone else without addressing the meat of an issue, why - sometimes that stays with me. (Oh! did you think that because I mostly POST here, I don't read elsewhere? Assumptions, sir!)

And it's just so easy to find it again when needed! A matter of seconds, the way this board is org'd!

So finally, I'll expect that someone who berates others for not saying what is meant will indeed say what he means. Guess I'm wrong about that, but then how can we understand your intent at all!?

Oh, yeah. By asking questions. But when those get ignored - well, that makes it even easier to fall back on the asusmptions that you say what you mean...

Anyway, too much time on my hands? Then I'll suppose that you define seconds and memory as having too much time, in which case, you probably want to re-think your own participation here! Or else, I'll suppose that you have no other life, and that part of your apparent bitterness and misanthropy is a result of that sad lack...

Second Law of Thermodynamics...

well, an attempt to move this from the scientific to the logical...

A. There's enough energy NOW to support human overpopulation and all the agriculture necessary to feed him, as well as more insect biomass (in kilos or pounds as you prefer) than any other group of life. Etc., etc.

B. So even if planet Earth WERE a closed system, which we're not (sunlight adds enery, comets add liquids, meteors add minerals, and even magma can be seen as adding energy to the system, blah, blah, blah), AND even if energy as discussed in the Second Law had anything do with evolution, entropy or anything else, then...

C. The energy available now for the current load could certainly support a smaller load that was evolving. Once the energy that went into evolution plateaued, then certain populations might start eating up their co-creatures and take over for a while (trilobites, dinosaurs, etc.) until the next event that sent the in-use energy and organic building blocks back to the warehouse for the next round of evolution.

(one of my favorite bumper stickers recently was "Honk if you understand punctuated equilibrium).

BUT - this is just a first quick attempt to answer a question that I can't buy into in the first place.

NOT a closed system (tho' arguably part of one on a much grander scale) means there's plenty of energy (sun) for all kinds of experiments.

But even if the Second Law was integrally and essentially related to evolution, these are both parts of the Creation God has provided us, and if He DID need to tweak it, why couldn't He? Still, I think it all works well enough that it doesn't need such cosmic tweaking.

Which is why He's God, and we're not! :-)

you know, it's been my experience that folks who like to point out the "insecurities" of others during a debate, esp. publically, fall into one or both two categories: those who really have a lot of issues of their own, and/or those who have run out of anything meaningful or of substance to say.

there's a smaller third group as well - those who just plain like to "fight dirty" or "stir the pot" for no other reason than effect - but I usually treat these as a subset of the folks who no thing of value to contribute...

Ah ZeePers!

"Just because I don't subscribe to your silly notions of religion, basing my philosophy on the teachings of an executed criminal."

I will assume - since you've taken others to task for precision in expression ("Classic American attitude toward language but consider this, how do we know what your message is if we can't understand it?") - that you in fact intend us to understand that you indeed base your philosophy on the teachings of an executed criminal (that's what the sentence says, as it stands). Just as when you point out adamantly that we can't prove that you're not a white supremacist... it's what you said, so it must be what you meant?

May we inquire as to who your chosen spiritual criminal might be? I also note that there is a tone of religious supremacism in your postings - but gee, I don't expect you to cop to that either.

kwc57, what or who would be an impartial source for Biblical study? this is a serious question, because from my perspective, and in this context, impartiality would involve someone who neither accepts nor rejects the Bible, but considers 'possible' truth in a number of ways. Is it internally consistent, can we tie it to current external events, is any current English version faithful to the original text, translation- and context-wise, and so on.

Then after such an analysis, makes a decision.

the study guides I've seen really all have a pro-Bible stance - tho some seem more OT oriented and others more NT.

Anyway - what would be your definition of impartial in this context?

Thanks for any info and insight!

"...as to a child."

I like to look at things this way: God tells us things as we become capable of understanding them.

Allegorically, if you will, we have the Creation of Genesis. When we as a race were young, He explained our origins as appropriate to our minds and understanding then, in gentle words that paved the way for later insight (btw - is there ANYone out there who thinks our current Bibles are word-perfect translations of the original texts? I'm all for 7 eons instead of 7 days! :-)

Anyway - in time, we came to new understandings of the world, and God led us unto science, giving us new tools to appreciate the complexity of His Creation, and the perfection of His Handiwork. Today, we can appreciate a work-in-progress, not yet complete as far as WE can see - we no longer need all art to remain fixed and frozen, and we are wrong to think that God is limited by such perception. Evolution is one Tool He uses - He sees all Creation, start to finish, while we are still stuck in the here and now - we can only see today, but God is not limited to today. His PERFECTION is in the eternal change as well as the frozen moment - it all comes together for Him, but we see only what we can. He sees Eternity, and all change is part of that Vision.

And as we have matured, He lets us see a little more, and understand a little more. If we are indeed His children, then He teaches us - probably more than we know! And He shows us a world that makes sense, where there is a logic to the motion of the planets, and where all life is one germ at the far end of the pond hop! That's really pretty awe-inspiring, to think of the loving-kindness of a Creation built in such a way that we could come to understand even part of it!! What a wonderful gift...

BUT - just when we think we can learn it all by the weekend, He throws out uncertainty and chaos, maybe as a way of putting His signature in a corner of the ever-changing canvas.

I expect that, later or sooner, He will let us understand a bit more of the mysterious sub-atomic side of His creation - but our test of worthiness may be that we don't kill ourselves before that time!

Just one perspective...

"lack of speciation in the last 150 years"?

Well, first, when a new species IS discovered, how do you know we never knew about it before simply because it didn't exist before??? that it hasn't just recently evolved?

and consider that there are fewer and fewer areas where man has not put his mark, taken the environment under his control and established those species he finds desirable - much to the detriment and even extinction of other species. Once man has found something he likes, he really likes to keep it around.

Dogs, cats, cattle, carrots - whatever. Human activity has really reduced the arena in which evolution CAN take place, and he's constantly pushing into the remaining areas.

Finally, for this rant - what, you think 150 years is a long time? Not to species, not to continents, not to God.

And btw - how is the cambrian explosion used as an argument AGAINST evolution? Sorry, that eludes me...? Could you expand on that a bit? I'm not clear on the point.

So, hey, let's save everyone a LOT of time - let's have somebody generate the criteria by which we can identify which kids we can ignore right off the bat, ok? This'd give us all so much MORE time for the easy ones and the ones we like!

oooh, ooh, ooh - and let's start an mandatory abortion program for everyone who matches any profiles of personality types known to produce such children so we can nip THAT bud before it's even grown!!!!

yeah, psycho-social triage - that's the ticket!

-o-

What a monstrous thread this has become... sure, drown those awful kids right off - not really that different from Hitler, now, is it? whether you marginalize/eliminate certain members of society by sending them to Coventry OR to Dachau, there ain't much difference...

and just to add to the cooks-n-broth, it was my understanding that the square knot was so called for its reliability - square in the sense of dependable - rather than for its shape.

'''"I think an excellent solution would be for all the people who think Boy Scouts should radically change its founding principles is form a group of their own."

I submit that this logic applies here.'''

Well, I really have to question teaching our kids that diversity means separation. When the Scouts made their position statement back in the 1970s, the gay families were mostly in the closet, and I don't think anyone gave any real thought to the impact on the kids if gay families became numerous.

Well, we're here! Cubs especially, I think, are prone to be hurt by this. Older kids can begin to understand and use selective thought processes, but the youngsters are really going to be confused. (BTW, how come no one seems to want to extend a hand to these families who, despite the stance of the BSA, see enough value in the program to overlook what should never be made an issue to the kids anyway, and participate in the greatest youth program in the world!?)

While "local standards" would have seemed to be the fix we've all been looking for, it's not to be at this point, tho' it may come later. As NJCubScouter mentions, the Execs say no, we will maintain nat'l standards on this (although there are all kinds of local standards on other things - money handling, neckerchief placement, jeans versus "official"pants, and even the way req'ts get met. oh well.)

Other folks say, 'make your own group'. As long as tax dollars suppport the Scouts, as long as a Congressional Charter exists, this IS "their own group." I thought we had gotten past all this separate-but-equal crud years ago!

The best program would be some kind of ParaScouts - the BSA would establish a separate program for anyone, authorize the limited use of all the Cub and BSA literature and programs, and the awards or a version thereof. This would be the Humanist Branch of the BSA, for those who want the program, but prefer an ethical rather than a moral slant (here, I'm using ethics as behavior that seeks good without the intervention of a divine arbiter, such intervention creating moral guidelines).

By creating a separate Open Scouting program, the BSA really only continues what it's already done with Venturing and Learning for Life, and (I will add cynically) gets to keep any new monies such a parallel program would generate.

This is still obnoxiously separate but equal, but it does give the BSA a middle ground to say that they are kid-friendly regardless of the parents.

Of course, simply offering to authorize the use of the basic program to some other, entirely separate and new organization is possible too, such that being able to say you're a Gay Eagle or a Pagan Eagle would indicate the same level of accomplishment and skill development as the current Eagle program - obviously, certain changes would be necessary, but I think that's all workable too. Even this, while still separatist, would at least show that the BSA Execs, while clinging to certain beliefs, recognize that the program could benefit a larger population than it can currently reach...

just some thoughts...

"However evolutionists (who understand what they are supporting) don't believe it is a conscious choice it is preprogrammed in the genes, period."

NO, no, no, no, no. First, evolution does not preclude free will, evolution has nothing to do with free will or predestination. The theory of evolution, and its sidemen, simply describe one wonderful tool that God has used to creat the rich diversity of species past and present that we see around us today and in the fossil record. it only describes a process - or processes - that have nothing to do with one race of man being superior or inferior. nothing to do with that kind of qualitative analysis.

"Better adapted to a particular environment" does not equate to "racial superiority". that is not a term a true, impartial evolutionary scientist would use.

If there is "evil" in evolutionary theory, it is in the misapplication thereof - but that wrong does NOT invalidate the theory itself.

The Bible is very clear in the Old Testament laws regarding diet - but those who choose to eat trayf point to various parts of the New Testament and say "well, you can INTERPRET this to allow pork chops in oyster sauce". Doesn't mean it really IS true, but what are you gonna do. As far as for avoiding women during their cycle, when they are "unclean" - I know of NO justification, Biblically, for changing the interpretation. Yet we do.

Does that mean it is right, from a Biblical perspective?

Evolution is a simple statement of process - it that process is misused, it is wrong-minded humans at fault, and not this amazing tile in the mosaic of life.

"God made man - but He used a monkey to do it."

-Devo

it seems as if there had been an intent to trip up the supporters of evolution by making the claim that somehow evolution equates with racism.

now, the pro-evolution side totally rallied against that claim, and I for one found the premise so ridiculous that I did not realize it was an attempt at a "trap". Why? Because it's an invalid premise, and I gave the folks making the equation maybe too much credit.

so, here's a question for scoutparent and the others on that side of things - what do YOU mean when you use the word evolution. It's obviously NOT what I mean, and it's not what's generally defined by science. so before we go on with this apples-and-oranges thing, we're we call everything grapes, please, scoutparent, just tell me YOUR definition of evolution... and if you could, how old do you think the world is?

(oh, and firstpusk, just to confirm - yes, I agree, we are all one family!)

"You've proven the point." Um - which point? If you're saying I've proven MY point, why then, you've truly earned my respect for being able to jump up and say it. Otherwise, sorry to be slow...

"Princeton biologist Lee Silver...suggests that nhancement through germ-line gene therapy, followed by assortative mating between the enhanced, could lead to superior gene pools (the Gen-Rich). If so, this would be the first ever success of eugenics at the population level."

Oops i bet he meant better adapted gene pools."

Here's where we have another one of those pesky linguistic issues. Haven't read the book, so I don't know if he does the kind of thing in the beginning of so many other science-for-the-popular market texts where the author explains that kind of usage as inaccurate tho utile, or not, so I'll turn to you and put THAT question, since I doubt that you would just be pulling isolated quotes out of context just to make a point, without actually being familiar with the work you're citing.

Here, it wouldn't be evolution at work, it would be human hubris - one wouldn't say "better adapted" at all, tho one might say "differently designed". See, then it's Man at work, and those who see no conflict between evolution and religion see evolution as one of GOD's greatest tools, not some new parlor trick for man...

Regardless of that, tho, I'll say it again, there is no superior in evolution, and add this - some folks define a yardstick or qualitative analyzer, and speak thereafter to better or worse IN RELATION TO THAT GUIDELINE. But once again, this don't make it so.

Is New York really heimie town just because Jesse Jackson called it that? Did Al Gore invent the Internet just because he said so? The world don't work that way, otherwise... wait, let me try something!

Hey - I'm the richest person in the world!!!!

Shucks. it didn't work!

" is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution"

Trying to make Germany "conform" to evolution does not affect, alter or redefine scientific evolution at all. In other words, so what? Basically, however misguided, this was culling - getting rid of the undesirables. Dog breeders do this when they move out the less desirable puppies with the caveat that the dog's new family won't try to breed the dog - really the same end result, a LOT kinder and more humanitarian, and guess what? - the dog is STILL the same species.

Further, "evolutuionist" used in this regard almost certainly refers to the school of political thought that nations and societies can and do change through a series of phases. Not the same kind of evolution we've been discussing up to now, and generally called Social Darwinism. Since Hitler held Christian beliefs, one can easily come to the conclusion that he was using 'science' to give vent to his prejudices.

Now, I say "almost certainly" because it is unlikely that I will have a chance to ever confrim my interpretation with Arthur Keith, but since Hitler WAS known to be a Social Darwinist and not to be a scientist, I feel fairly secure in my interpretation.

So really, I supppose this is more an embarrassment for the poli-sci majors than the bio-texts, and they're used to handing this stuff already!

Now, the Spanish Inquisition was not held for any reason of Evolution - what can we say about the institutions and personages that sponsored IT?

...in fact, ya know what? Using Hitler to prove that evolution's 'wrong' would be like using the Spanish Inquisition to prove that Christianity's 'wrong'.

Neither is invalidated by the acts of madmen or fanatics... are they?

"In the name of preserving the myth of evolution, people have committed huge atrocities..."

well, if you swap out 'superiority' for 'evolution' in that excerpt, it's probably true.

otherwise, PLEASE explain how mass murder, genocide, progroms, crusades, inquisitions, etc., help preserve the so-called 'myth of evolution', or preserve evolution at all! EVOLUTION DOES NOT TALK ABOUT SUPERIORITY, and EVOLUTION DOES NOT CONDONE MASS MURDER. it has nothing to do with this, and no amount of errored argument will change that!

"evolutionists must recognize that the theory supports such racists thoughts that one group of human beings is superior to others...:

see, the problem is that an true evolutionist and scientist (and NOT some racist fraud masquerading as such)would NOT use the word superior. (s)he might say differently adapted, better adapted, or more suited to one particular environment, but this is NOT superiority. evolution does not deal in the superior or the inferior, but to the more or less adapted to (I'll say it again) ONE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT. Since a Sherpa can live on the mountain and at altitude better than I, does that make him superior? YES, if that's your criteria, and the thing YOU choose to measure; the evolutionist would simply say that the Sherpa is better adapted to that environment.

Crikey, folks, don't we all spend time telling our children that everyone has something different they're better at, and that it doesn't mean you're bad or stupid or a geek if your skill ain't the mainstream, it just means we're all different? ("That's just the way God made me" - Peggy Hill and/or Randy Travis).

If the point has been that evolution supports racism, then I missed it because it just is not so. Evolution recognizes that some traits are better adapted to certain environments, and if those environments maintain long enough, then those traits will become more and more frequently found in that particular population.

If the Andes suddenly flattened, and the mountain folk had to start competition with the population already in the rain forest... oh, you get the point.

maybe this is the key - "better adapted" DOES NOT MEAN "superior". it isn't - and cannot be - used that way. see, the genes that allow that better adaptation can be shared, and in many cases are recessively present when a population is suddenly confronted with a need to adapt to a new situation.

so I suppose that could mean that we're ALL superior, but then that totally invalidates the use of the word anyway.

WE ARE ALL FAMILY. We are all better at different things. and the true world community MUST begin as a community of children, because we adults have done way too much to drive wedges between ourselves...

that the "basis for evolution is for some traits to be more desirable than others" is a misstatement. it is that some traits are more successful under certain conditions. black skin typically gets less skin cancer than white skin with a lot of moles, under the tropical sun.

So I guess for Scout Parent, that makes being black more desirable, whereas for a true scientist, it just makes it a successful adaptation to that environment.

"...better adapted rather than superior, how does that apply to humans and the theory of evolution?"

it means that all else equal, an Australian Aborigine it BETTER ADAPTED to the outback than I am. And so superior to me in this regard.

Conversely, I am probably better adapted to life in the city, by virtue of having lived in one all my life and being used to its practices and pitfalls.

Now, in the span of a single life, the Aborigine is probably going to adapt better to life in the city, than I am to being barefoot in a loincloth and hunting with a boomerang in the outback. So once again, I gotta guess the Aborigine's my superior...

Too much is made of IQ - and IQ testing. First, unless there have been some major advances in the last week, the IQ tests in use almost necessarily reflect the cultural bias of their developers; there are no IQ tests in use today that measure an IQ adapted to recognizing 17 different types of snow or recognizing the difference between the footprints of a rogue male elephant and a terminally ill matron.

Even within a country - ours, for example - IQ tests for too many years have been limited to scan a certain subset of all American culture. There is no IQ test in use in the schools that accomodates street cultures on any level, and in the final analysis, all that is generally measured is the testee's schooling; there is intelligence beyond school, but you don't find a whole lot of tests based in Ebonics, or that talk about car engine stats instead of cooking measurements.

So - yeah, if your own splinter population does well on an IQ test that it developed, well - hey, good for you, but how does it really relate to a Soth Seas pearl diver or a Bushman? Not at all, I think is the answer you're looking for!

'K, so now let's look at what your basic Euro-style IQ has done for the world. Um... Industrial Revolution gave us pollution, child labor, and the alarm clock. Nuclear weaponry.

Super bugs and death dealing drugs - hey, intelligence goes glue-sniffing, after all!

What a lot of people lose sight of is that IQ is just one more trait, like sharp teeth, night vision or a diving reflex. IF ANY TRAIT ALLOWS A SPECIES TO OUT-COMPETE EVERYTHING ELSE IN ITS NICHE, that trait is likely to be ultimately responsible for the extinction of the species that developed it. An intelligent, territorial omnivore pretty soon wipes out the available game, chews the grass down to the roots and unless it has a chance to move along, will go thru cycles of severe privation, decimation, and slow re-population if it survives at all.

Most of the time, the poet's cat is the happier beast...

"Sex is activity that is ultimately related to reproduction between a male and a female. "

So the "oral arguments" used by President Clinton were right, and he really didn't? Wow, live and learn...

Some of the world's Flood stories have the protagonist survivor getting to dry land and either finding other folks there already, or being joined by others later.

In the Bible, the world's pretty much re-populated by the sons of Noah - and if that doesn't make us brothers, then we're all cousins at the least with an ultimate common Grandmother and Grandfather. Of course, Noah and Mrs. Noah go all the way back to Adam and Eve - but today, that aside, per the Bible, we are all descendants of Noah. How can we NOT be one family? (Hmmm - and likely an inbred family at that! :-)