[vision-master]

X'plain this one grasshoppers........

ANTARCTICA

[bratticus]

[katkinkate]

Everything dies eventually.

[katkinkate]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SteinarN', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'I')'ve got a spoiler for the Bible-thumpers. You ready for it? Here is comes......

DINOSAURS!!

[PenultimateManStanding]

Didn't the Vatican apologize for it's treatment of Galileo and admit that Copernicus was correct? Also, I think Unitarians and Episcopalians are not adamant about saying their faith is the only correct faith.

[yeahbut]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'D')idn't the Vatican apologize for it's treatment of Galileo and admit that Copernicus was correct?

[SteinarN]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yeahbut', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'D')idn't the Vatican apologize for it's treatment of Galileo and admit that Copernicus was correct?

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')volutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.

The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection.

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".

Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.

Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... -tree-life

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SteinarN', '
')Can you name me one religion that suports Sun is the center of our solar system?

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')volutionary biologists say crossbreeding between species is far more common than previously thought, making a nonsense of the idea of discrete evolutionary branches

Charles Darwin's "tree of life", which shows how species are related through evolutionary history, is wrong and needs to be replaced, according to leading scientists.

The great naturalist first sketched how species might evolve along branches of an imaginary tree in 1837, an idea that quickly came to symbolise the theory of evolution by natural selection.

But modern genetics has revealed that representing evolutionary history as a tree is misleading, with scientists saying a more realistic way to represent the origins and inter-relatedness of species would be an impenetrable thicket. Darwin himself also wrote about evolution and ecosystems as a "tangled bank".

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.

Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".

Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.

Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... -tree-life

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SteinarN', '
')Can you name me one religion that suports Sun is the center of our solar system?

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '
')Where did it say that dinosours were hopping with Adam and Eve 6000 years ago?

Just admit that you have a few years left and you scared shitless that aliens won't be waiting for you at your deathbed with a ticket for interstellar cruise with your name on it. Admit it, will ya?

[PenultimateManStanding]

I've posted on this before. I am convinced that there is an innate intelligence at the genetic level, that it isn't random. Evolution is not a blind adaptation fostered by random DNA mutations selected by the environment. That is, of course, the standard biological paradigm, but I believe it is wrong. I'm not talking intelligent design or creationism. I just think the scientific paradigm is wrong. Beyond the precambrian stromatolites there is not a lot we know about the billion years history of single celled organisms. But that's a long time and a lot of amazing things happened.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')eople are binary thinkers. If you say you have a problem with the dogmatism of Darwinian evolutionary theory, they immediately think you're a creationist. Natural selection is turning out to be one of many different evolutionary mechanisms. It's not either/or.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')atural selection was one of the foundations of Darwin's theory. The reason why darwin's theory might seem "dogmatic" is because it has been successfully proven to be true over and over again. There is nothing credible to stand against it, it has been proven with transitional fossils as well as genetics. The only other theories out there are visionmaster's stargate-isms or religious creation stories (such as adam and eve), and the evidence for them pretty much non-existent.

[outcast]

Which Adam and Eve story do you want? There is more than one version.



Rather than laboriously type out the different myths from around the world, I'd rather just link to them


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Well, that was 380 years late. Lets see, that should be roughly year 2230 to admit Darwin is correct.

[vision-master]

My point is we did not evolve from monkeys.

[outcast]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'M')y point is we did not evolve from monkeys.

[vision-master]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('outcast', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'M')y point is we did not evolve from monkeys.

[PenultimateManStanding]

The discussion this time (we've discussed this many times before) seems to have reached a dead end. Some people really are quite dogmatic about this. Its either Darwin or God. The notion that evolution, while indisputable, may be best understood by something other than NeoDarwinist precepts or by something that includes NeoDarwinism but has a profound, deeper level does not register with some people. I think the situation is analogous to what happened to Newtonian Mechanics. Those mechanics were not invalidated, just shown to be limited in scope and applicability.