Evolution is quicker than they thought
Samoan butterflies quickly evolve to avoid extinction .
It appears that evolution can take place much faster than the scientists realized before now.
They said the butterflies' tale is the fastest example of natural selection observed to date and shows evolution can happen quickly when the stakes are high.
snip
"This is one of the most clear and fastest cases of evolution under natural selection," said Sylvain Charlat of University College London, whose study appears in the journal Science.
snip
What is clear, they said, is the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population.
Natural selection typically moves very slowly, sometimes over hundreds of years, they said, but when under severe attack, this process was accelerated.
The more we know, the more we know we don't know.
Not macro, not micro... just evolution.
I don't like the wording of the article. Species do not mutate in response to a situation, they have to already have a mutation and then that trait will survive while the others die. It is all about good genetic diversity.
It appears that evolution can take place much faster than the scientists realized before now.
Just the other day I saw a short episode or polar bears swimming from block of ice to block of ice.
Polar bears the scientist said don't like to swim. I wondered if they will evolve and not become extinct as some scientists fear. Same goes for the penguins.
I don't like the wording of the article. Species do not mutate in response to a situation, they have to already have a mutation and then that trait will survive while the others die. It is all about good genetic diversity.
Ineresting. So since the bears already know how to swim they will survive right? Perhaps the lighter bears will survive over the heavier ones?
That's a bit of confusion from the global warming folks: polar bears do not live on ice, they use the ice as fishing platforms. As the ice melts they do not lose their home, which is on land; they lose their jumping-off places to catch more fish.
Of course species mutate in response to situations... that's the idea.
Ducks from S America end-up on the Falklands and other islands... they change. Happens all the time, duh.
Well, piercehawkeye45 is correct that individuals don't mutate in response to situations- the gene has no way to know in advance what sort of mistranscribing will be useful. But the selection of beneficial mutations that "mutates" the species in general is in response to situations.
Biologist PZ Meyers has
an interesting article on these moths, tying them into the comic book "Y the Last Man".
That's a bit of confusion from the global warming folks: polar bears do not live on ice, they use the ice as fishing platforms. As the ice melts they do not lose their home, which is on land; they lose their jumping-off places to catch more fish.
I haven't seen any miscommunication on that front. It's usually pretty clear that the bears are swimming out to sea in hopes of finding a floe to rest on and fish from, and drowning if they can't. They are good swimmers, but they can't swim indefinitely.
There may be selection pressure that causes them to give up and head back to land earlier, but if that means they don't have enough to feed their young, they aren't going to pass that tendency on. Perhaps they'll have to start picking a cub, and only raise one at a time instead of two.
Well, piercehawkeye45 is correct that individuals don't mutate in response to situations- the gene has no way to know in advance what sort of mistranscribing will be useful. But the selection of beneficial mutations that "mutates" the species in general is in response to situations.
Biologist PZ Meyers has an interesting article on these moths, tying them into the comic book "Y the Last Man".
Individuals?
I thought we were talking about evolution? *pulls out map*:whofart:
Individuals mutate, species evolve, which is why I put "mutate" in quotes. For a species to evolve in response to a situation, it has to have individuals with beneficial mutations. The mutations aren't in response to the situation, but the evolution is.
Bullshit...I thought every thing was created and it's part of God's masterplan that's what they teach nowadays aint it thought they just opened the Creationist Museum your side of the pond which explains it all :D
http://www.creationmuseum.org/Individuals mutate, species evolve, which is why I put "mutate" in quotes. For a species to evolve in response to a situation, it has to have individuals with beneficial mutations. The mutations aren't in response to the situation, but the evolution is.
How do they know what causes the mutations? How do they know they are not in response to some outside threat?
Of course species mutate in response to situations... that's the idea.
No, what happens is there is already genetic diversity and natural selection will take its course (assuming we leave out the four other variables for microevolution).
For viruses for example, lets assume that there are four different types of virus A: AA, AB, AC, and AD. Lets say there are 1,000 virus strains and 950 are AA, 20 are AB, 20 are AC, and 10 are AD. When we add an antibody to kill the virus, we find out that the type AB is already immune to the antibody. So after we add the antibody, the number of virus strains go down from 1,000 of 4 different kinds to 20 just AB making it seem like the virus is gone but then the AB virus will grow again and in a week or so we will have 950 AB viruses, 20 AA, 20, AE, and 10 AF. We add the antibody again but since AB is immune to it, 950 virus strains will remain and it will seem that the virus has mutated in response to the antibody when in reality, the conditions changed and the virus strains that were already immune to the antibody were the only ones that survived (microevolution).
Mutations are random, natural section is not.
No, what happens is there is already genetic diversity and natural selection will take its course (assuming we leave out the four other variables for microevolution).
For viruses for example, lets assume that there are four different types of virus A: AA, AB, AC, and AD. Lets say there are 1,000 virus strains and 950 are AA, 20 are AB, 20 are AC, and 10 are AD. When we add an antibody to kill the virus, we find out that the type AB is already immune to the antibody. So after we add the antibody, the number of virus strains go down from 1,000 of 4 different kinds to 20 just AB making it seem like the virus is gone but then the AB virus will grow again and in a week or so we will have 950 AB viruses, 20 AA, 20, AE, and 10 AF.
Wait a minute, we killed the AA viruses off, where did the 20 AAs come from?
How do they know what causes the mutations? How do they know they are not in response to some outside threat?
If you find evidence of a creature modifying its DNA in response to a threat, that would be interesting.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly isn't common...
I would be able to find one because I don't know jack shit about this stuff. I just wonder how they determine what causes mutations.
No, what happens is there is already genetic diversity and natural selection will take its course (assuming we leave out the four other variables for microevolution).
For viruses for example, lets assume that there are four different types of virus A: AA, AB, AC, and AD. Lets say there are 1,000 virus strains and 950 are AA, 20 are AB, 20 are AC, and 10 are AD. When we add an antibody to kill the virus, we find out that the type AB is already immune to the antibody. So after we add the antibody, the number of virus strains go down from 1,000 of 4 different kinds to 20 just AB making it seem like the virus is gone but then the AB virus will grow again and in a week or so we will have 950 AB viruses, 20 AA, 20, AE, and 10 AF. We add the antibody again but since AB is immune to it, 950 virus strains will remain and it will seem that the virus has mutated in response to the antibody when in reality, the conditions changed and the virus strains that were already immune to the antibody were the only ones that survived (microevolution).
Mutations are random, natural section is not.
Dude, you need to read a lot more about viruses and how they adapt and how we adapt to them.
Every flu you have can produce 1000 strains of itself just within you. Some can do it every time it reproduces in
each cell.
Antigen shift is what you are talking about and it happens all the time and we actually, and other species, adapt to it all the time.
There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution.
Evolution is evolution.
A mutation that is adopted by a species is natural selection.
There are many adaptations that are in response to threats, environmental, predatory, etc.... making that specific to DNA is a very odd way of looking at it, but I guess you could.
Wait a minute, we killed the AA viruses off, where did the 20 AAs come from?
It was just an example. The virus may change back to AA. It doesn't really mean anything.
I would be able to find one because I don't know jack shit about this stuff. I just wonder how they determine what causes mutations.
A mutation is just a mistake. Pretend that you have to rewrite an entire book word of word without being able to correct your mistakes. You will most likely have a type-o here and there and that would be a mutation in biology sense. When the DNA is being copied, there will be miscopy and that will be a mutation.
Dude, you need to read a lot more about viruses and how they adapt and how we adapt to them.
It was a simplified example on how natural selection works.
There is not ONE recognized biologist that uses the term macro or micro evolution.
Evolution is evolution.
What is the catch with that? I took a Biology course this year and both my professors used micro and macro evolution. When you understand what evolution is then the both micro and macro are not needed but you have to include them when you are explaining how evolution works.
Let me clarify, no evolutionary biologist. It's what we were discussing.
Was it a Christian college?
I had an English teacher teach the Divine Comedy in prose... there are fools in every profession.
No, University of Minnesota.
Can you give a source for that because I have never heard that before?
Source of what?
Are you asking me to show a negative?
Ok, I see where you get that from since a lot of microevolutions make up a macroevolution so they are one in the same but they are usually taught that there is a difference for simplicity reasons.
Edit- Something like
this.
That was funny.
Once something evolves it evolves, it is not like the process is going to revert or the line is not going to be changed by it forever.
It is permanently changed, evolved, by it.
Microevolution is just a way for creationists to deal with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.
Dogs instead of wolves? "Oh, they changed after the flood... MICROevolution, but it's not REAL evolution".
Joke.
Evolutionary theory is so far removed from Darwin's theories the dead-giveaway for someone just trying to make a point instead of actually discussing current theory is bringing-up that name.
Microevolution is usually the term for short term evolution, which is proven, and macroevolution is the long term use, which is not.
Microevolution- the change of one trait
Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.
I agree that micro and macro evolution are essentially the same thing but the definitions are there to describe the time involved so it is easier to grasp as a concept since you can not make a new species when a change of one trait occurs.
macroevolution is the long term use, which is not.
This conversation is over.
Get that stick out of your ass rkzenrage.
Science is built on fact, we do not have proof that macroevolution exists even though it is logical that it should. We can not say as fact that they are the same even though we know they are because we haven't proven it yet. If you don't have proof, it can not be a fact, very simple concept. We then split it up to show that parts of evolution are fact while others logically should be fact even though it hasn't been proven yet.
It is just like long and short distance running, is there a difference? No, they are both running. We distinguish the two for simplicity reasons.
We need it for this reason:
"I just ran 100 meters"
"Can you run 1 million meters?"
"Ughh....if given enough time I'm sure I could"
"How do you know if you've never done it""
"Because if I can run 100 meters so I can logically run 1 million meters since they are the same thing but just a longer distance"
"Do you know for a fact?"
"No, because I've never done it"
Science can not allow us to say it is fact that I can run 1 million meters until I have actually done it. We have not seen macroevolution so we can not say it is a fact.
Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.
Then Macro might have happened in a short time span, say one scientists career span, it's just that nobody has observed/documented it.... yet.
Macroevolution- the change of enough traits where two once the same species can not mate and produce healthy children with eachother.
That's called
speciation, and it most certainly has been observed and recorded by science.
The creationist definition for macroevoution is "whatever hasn't been directly observed yet". So, it is currently one step past speciation, at what they call "kinds". So a wolf can become a dog, but that doesn't mean it's related to cats, because they're different "kinds". When a change of that magnitude is experimentally demonstrated, they'll move on to saying that OK, maybe mammals, but there's no relationship to reptiles. There will always be a god of the gaps.
That's called speciation, and it most certainly has been observed and recorded by science.
I didn't see any time frames for the speciation than wasn't the result of human manipulation.
The creationist definition for macroevoution is "whatever hasn't been directly observed yet". So, it is currently one step past speciation, at what they call "kinds". So a wolf can become a dog, but that doesn't mean it's related to cats, because they're different "kinds". When a change of that magnitude is experimentally demonstrated, they'll move on to saying that OK, maybe mammals, but there's no relationship to reptiles. There will always be a god of the gaps.
Yes but we're discussing science here, and not the creationist mumbo jumbo, as far as I can tell. Aren't we?
I didn't see any time frames for the speciation than wasn't the result of human manipulation.
There is no time frame. It can happen in one generation, or extremely slowly.
Of course, "one generation" is all but impossible for species that must reproduce sexually, but there are plenty that don't have to.
Yes but we're discussing science here, and not the creationist mumbo jumbo, as far as I can tell. Aren't we?
In science, the term is used much less frequently and with a
very different meaning:
Some examples of subjects whose study falls within the realm of macroevolution:[LIST]
[*]The debate between punctuated equilibrium and gradualism
[*]Speciation and extinction rates
[*]Mass extinctions
[*]Adaptive radiations such as The Cambrian Explosion
[*]Changes in biodiversity through time
[*]The role of development in shaping evolution, particularly such topics as heterochrony and developmental plasticity
[*]Genomic evolution, like horizontal gene transfer, genome fusions in endosymbioses, and adaptive changes in genome size[/LIST]
Aw crap, PH45's explanation is so much easier.
edit
OK, so Mendel (with modifications) has become generally accepted, while Schmalhausen's and Mayr's theorys have been discounted. The more tools they discover, like DNA, the stronger Mendel's theory looks and makes the micro/macro business Dobzhansky came up with, mesh.
Nevertheless, the term macroevolution has been around since the thirties and the definition now pretty well agreed on, in scientific circles. The creationists attempt to subvert it's meaning/use to make their case, is a non-starter.
Therefore, I'll stick with PH45's description as close enough for me.
Fine, but PH45 is saying that his definition of macroevolution hasn't been proven--and it has.
But I still haven't seen any time frames for speciation, where there hasn't been any manipulation by humans.
If you find evidence of a creature modifying its DNA in response to a threat, that would be interesting.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but it certainly isn't common...
This chart in
Clodfobble's link on speciation could certainly be called modification in response to a threat, specifically the loss of their normal food supply.
Why does everyone put down creationists? You know, people who maintain religion and origin from a supreme being? I bet that's the majority of the board, but I don't know for sure.
Recklessly calling it mumbo jumbo warrants offense to many.
It's mumbo jumbo because it's faith and not science.
The source of origin isn't necessarily being questioned, just the mechanism 'tween there and here.
Then you are intolerant of others' beliefs. Nowhere did you have to name call all creationists and refer to their way of lives' as mumbo jumbo. But you did, and I ask you why. Creationists were fine with you having the discussing within the realm of science without discrediting creationism.
Ok at least you edited in the second part, I was responding to what you originally said.
Intolerant? Hell no. They can believe what ever they want but they are trying to discredit science with no proof. That's not acceptable.
You seem to take offense at the term mumbo jumbo. OK, I apologize and retract that term. What shall we call it? Traditional explanation?
Where, anywhere, did a creationist viewpoint try to prove wrong science, huh Bruce?
Then you are intolerant of others' beliefs. Nowhere did you have to name call all creationists and refer to their way of lives' as mumbo jumbo. But you did, and I ask you why.
You can believe whatever you want to believe - but asking other people to
respect your beliefs is asking too much. (If you believe that gravity is really angels holding everything down should I respect that? Sorry, not gonna.) Intolerant? I'm fine with that. I'm intolerant of people who think they are the chosen ones,the only ones 'doing it right', and base their view of the world on old books instead of evidence. Religion is ridiculous and I personally have no respect for it.
I'm sorry you are such an intolerant woman jinx. Seems like personal bias is too much of a string for you to hold. That you cannot respect others values and beliefs---that is very much medieval in mindset and time. Thanks for labeling me as a Bible thumping priest but I too am an atheist if you find that hard to believe.
Here's a good quote for you intolerant self centered atheists.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
Heard of him?
It's atheists who go around screaming "RELIGION SUCKS" that give atheism a bad name.
Joke:
Too bad all the creationists are all at church, temple or synagogue!
It's atheists who go around screaming "RELIGION SUCKS" that give atheism a bad name.
fucktard
I'm sorry you are such an intolerant woman jinx.
Yeah... I'm not. Not sorry at all. Religion poisons everything.
And I didn't label you. I don't care what you choose to believe, just don't ask me to agree with you, or pretend that I don't think your beliefs are silly.
"You" is a general term.
Where, anywhere, did a creationist viewpoint try to prove wrong science, huh Bruce?
Whoa Nellie! Have you been paying attention? Here in PA, and elsewhere like Kansas, or even the National Park system, they are running amok.
The Grand Canyon was NOT formed in a few weeks or months. The Dinosaurs did NOT live 2000 years ago.
Their efforts to cram millions of years of history into a few thousand years IS an attack on science.
This chart in Clodfobble's link on speciation could certainly be called modification in response to a threat, specifically the loss of their normal food supply.
Right, the species was modified in response to the threat, when the individual bugs who by random chance best handled the new food bred more. The individual flies didn't modify their genes to metabolize the new food better.
Bruce I was referring to the thread.
And fatass and his wife, whatever, it doesn't even mean anything anymore what they say. LJ just rushed in to spit an insult, that's their method of support.
Right, the species was modified in response to the threat, when the individual bugs who by random chance best handled the new food bred more. The individual flies didn't modify their genes to metabolize the new food better.
OK, I follow you. But the groups did change and diverge in response to outside stimuli. There must be an awful lot of fruit flies out there that can't get laid.... they're lucky then don't live long.
Bruce I was referring to the thread.
Just because no creationist came and posted, doesn't limit the discussion. Their views, the ones that are actively trying to undermine the achievements of science, are well know and publicized
You said,
Why does everyone put down creationists? You know, people who maintain religion and origin from a supreme being? I bet that's the majority of the board, but I don't know for sure.
I'd bet money that the vast majority of the faithful are pretty ambivalent on the debate between scientists and creation activists, despite rkzenrage's attempts to lump all Christians into one camp.
Further I'd bet most Christians realize the old testament was a record of Jewish history, with the "before known" filled in to explain what they didn't know because humans are curious.
Rational people would understand that science has filled in the "unknown" with "known" and "highly likely".
I have no problem with keeping the faith and accepting knowledge as it becomes available. Neither has to negate the other.
Why does everyone put down creationists? You know, people who maintain religion and origin from a supreme being? I bet that's the majority of the board, but I don't know for sure.
Recklessly calling it mumbo jumbo warrants offense to many.
Not the people being put down, it is the idea.
No reason to respect the idea. It flies in the face of all current data. Show data supporting creationism and all dissent will go away. It
really is that simple.
You can still respect the person that believes it, but there is no reason to show any deference to something that is so obviously false, especially when there are those trying to harm our children and their futures by foisting it upon them and trying to steal their time studying real science with that drivel.
If those who believe this want to disable their children from being able to think scientifically, child abuse IMO, but fine for them I guess. They need to send their kid to a religious institution that teaches it... even
those are becoming hard to find.
But, there is no reason for anyone to respect an idea, it does not disrespect the people who hold that idea... that is a falsehood.
Way of life?
Hardly, it is just a belief about how things began...
nothing more.
Creationists entering a discussion about evolution is not a bad thing, but it is off-topic.
I'm sick of this,
Creationism has the same opportunity that evolution had when it was seen as nutty as creationism is seen now.
Present your hypothesis (I have yet to see it presented in a scientific manner) so that it can be peer-reviewed.
That is how a theory happens... the ONLY way!!!!!!
If another scientist cannot recreate your results, the same way you did, guess what, your shit ends there, end of story, no theory, no lectures, no nothing, laughing stock... that is the first and, really, only step past hypothesis to theory, peer-review.
Then, others review your work, their work, do it for themselves, then apply it differently, change it for different, but similar results, write papers as well... then the theory becomes "accepted".
That is all creationists have to do.
I REALLY, HONESTLY, DO NOT see what they are COMPLAINING about!!!!!
Just do the science and then all this crap will just GO AWAY!!!
I don't want to hear any nutty bullshit about faith.
You want to be seen as a science then do science.
You want to be a faith, then shut-up and get out of the pool and go play in the sandbox with the other religions.
Again, it REALLY IS that simple.
I'd bet money that the vast majority of the faithful are pretty ambivalent on the debate between scientists and creation activists, despite rkzenrage's attempts to lump all Christians into one camp.
I have never done that. You know nothing about me.
I have issues with a great deal about Religion, not people of faith. The two have nothing to do with each other.
My son is less likely to hear about creationism, at all, at his Episcopal school (that brags about teaching to kids of all faiths and flies flags of 24 faiths in it's lobby, all the faiths of it's kids), than in the FL public school system. The Episcopal church backs Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and teaches pure Evolution.
Wow, sorry the whole board is full of intolerant purists science atheists who can't even have friends who might keep a faith because they are so dumb as to not believe the wonders of science.
As an atheist and evolutionist but ALSO an accepting tolerant man who embraces diversity in our country I am sad that I am surrounded here by atheists and evolutionists who's goal in life is to despise and put down all "traditional explanation."
Ok, so moreover the creationists, specifically Protestant Christians in the USA, "attack" science and provide "bogus" explanations. Ok. So they tell us off and get on our case. Why do we have to tell them off too, why do we have to be the hater. Why can't we accept our own "spiritual" differences and deal with it.
I myself am GOING to respect everything they believe in, even if I don't agree with it. Because my morals of an atheist evolutionist tell me who the hell cares if they don't think the way I think they are no less of a good person than me. In fact we can all learn from everyones differences.
So wait a second, so we are going to act just like "them", and show our own intolerance of religion instead of allowing religion to still maintain itself? We have to shun it and brutalize religion just because we don't think the same? So we need to go out of our way to make sure every faith believer knows he or she is wrong and science is true and you suck for believing? Why can't we just be tolerant of human differences. Are you going to go tell Amazonian, distant African and Pacific Island peoples that because they have no exposure to science that they are "teh sux0rs" and are ridiculous and therefore beneath us, the high and mighty educated higher class atheists and evolutionists?
To have NO RESPECT for another persons beliefs, values, religious beliefs, is highly unsophisticated and uncivilized.
So much for our science.
Wow, sorry the whole board is full of intolerant purists science atheists who can't even have friends who might keep a faith because they are so dumb as to not believe the wonders of science.
LOL!
Full of the intolerant? Really, who, name one.
Did you read my post at all?
Belief is not a part of science, the nature of it is that it changes daily... that is the only thing you can believe in when it comes to science.
Why would one respect a belief they do not hold?
Makes no sense.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire
I agree with that, but it does not say you have to tell them you agree with, think that their belief is accurate/respectable/etc.
I guess you were not here for the discussion about Europe outlawing speech from the neonazi groups.
Do you respect the beliefs and opinions of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao...
genocide is very effective you know? You don't want to offend.
Or just those who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum? Yeah, I buy that you REALLY respect their ideas.
Not them, just what they believe... bullshit.
So fellow atheist and evolutionist, do you politely decline to speak to people of faith? Do you disassociate with them?
For they speak blasphemy in the name of science!
Can't you just let some things be?
And do I really need to tell you who is intolerant? I mean, jinx JUST blatantly admitted a few posts ago.
If you want to be a hardass atheist "Darwin rocks my socks" then whatever. I just don't see a point.
I wonder rk, if you respect your parents. Because I bet money they weren't atheists.
Wow, sorry the whole board is full of intolerant purists science atheists who can't even have friends who might keep a faith because they are so dumb as to not believe the wonders of science. ~snip
Damn, you sure get surrounded easily. There are a whole shitload of people on this board... two or three don't represent everyone, nor are they capable of surrounding.
You accused me of picking on the faithful and I demonstrated that is not the case. My objection is to the creationist activists trying to discredit legitimate science. So can the, "you're all intolerant", bullshit, it don't float.... and it voids any legitimate points you're trying to present.
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. -Voltaire
Unless you're on this message board, eh?
That dude is not reading anyone else's posts.
I do respect my parents, I do not respect a great deal of what they do and say. AGAIN, you cannot read.
Also, evolution and Darwin don't have ANYTHING to do with atheism... where do you make that connection? I wish you answered questions... that would be funny.
Most Catholic and Episcopal schools teach evolution.
Atheism has nothing to do with science, I know many who do not give a shit about it at all.
All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god.
You are an atheist, do you believe Thor is the one true god of thunder, really?
Then you are an atheist to those who do.
Everyone is an atheist to someone else who is religious.
Listen I don't agree with creationists and the faithful. But I do not see any valid reason as to put them down. I mean there's enough religious wars between religions.
Does atheism and science really need to get involved?
The golden rule Bruce, do unto others as you want others to do unto you. I want the faithful to respect me and see me as a valid human being, just different from them. I will give them the same respect I expect from them. "Oh but they don't give you respect!" Yeah, the intolerant ones don't. I see past them, to the decent hearted faithful who respect me for my beliefs just as I do to them.
Catholic schools. Teaching evolution. My best friend went to a Catholic school, so I know they don't. Are you fucking kidding me, rk, please tell me you are. That a private religious institution, teaches the ways of heresy. Really.
Atheism has nothing to do with science, I know many who do not give a shit about it at all.
All atheism is, is a lack of belief in god.
You are an atheist, do you believe Thor is the one true god of thunder, really?
Then you are an atheist to those who do.
Everyone is an atheist to someone else who is religious.
Since you edited and added it I wanted to address it. Merriam Webster Online.
Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
And to all my knowledge it means you do not believe in a higher power, period. Sounds like you are just twisting the word atheist. So if you claim to be an evolutionist, then are you an atheist too?
Listen I don't agree with creationists and the faithful. But I do not see any valid reason as to put them down. I mean there's enough religious wars between religions.
I'm glad you made the distinction between creationists and the faithful. While there is an overlap, the creationists are really a small part of the other. The only ones I'm attacking are the small percentage of the creationists that are directly and intensionally trying to discredit science. That's what, 1% of 10% of the faithful that have been educated in science? Actually I'm not attacking, but counterattacking the idiots that have attacked science.
Does atheism and science really need to get involved?
Atheism doesn't enter into it at all, where in hell do you get that from? Does science need to defend itself from creationists that are trying to discredit it? Hell yes, tooth and nail.
The golden rule Bruce, do unto others as you want others to do unto you. I want the faithful to respect me and see me as a valid human being, just different from them. I will give them the same respect I expect from them. "Oh but they don't give you respect!" Yeah, the intolerant ones don't. I see past them, to the decent hearted faithful who respect me for my beliefs just as I do to them.
Respect you? Of course I do, after last night I'll respect you for ever.
Seriously though, don't confuse who is the aggressor. Scientists have
not attacked the faithful. It's that small percentage of creationists, the rabid ones, the ones trying to discredit science, the ones trying to further their agenda through the public schools, that are the aggressors.
Listen I don't agree with creationists and the faithful. But I do not see any valid reason as to put them down.
Cite where I, or anyone, put religious
people down.
I am sick of your slander.
The only thing I have said that even comes close to a put-down is that you don't read. Not can't but don't.
But the evidence is clear on that.
Atheism and science are not involved,
you are the only person that tries to link the two, they are not.
My best friend went to a Catholic school
When?
OK, I follow you. But the groups did change and diverge in response to outside stimuli.
Right, that's the distinction I was trying to make. Groups evolve in reaction to outside stimuli, and individuals mutate with no particular direction.
Hmmmm... none of my questions from ANY of my posts answered.
None of the challenges to his slander and baseless accusations against myself and others replied to.
Imagine that?
Got very quiet didn't it?
Right, that's the distinction I was trying to make. Groups evolve in reaction to outside stimuli, and individuals mutate with no particular direction.
Exactly, but individual mutation, if advantageous, ends-up in the whole population through time.
Both are mutations, just different forms and expressions, and both are evolution.
If it changes the genome, it is mutation, if it is adopted by the whole, or a portion which becomes a separate whole, it is evolution.
Jeb, I think religion is silly and destructive - how come you're not being tolerant of my beliefs?? Why aren't you defending my right to say what I think?? :rolleyes:
Jeb, I might listen too you, but your signature is too loud.
Catholic schools. Teaching evolution. My best friend went to a Catholic school, so I know they don't. Are you fucking kidding me, rk, please tell me you are. That a private religious institution, teaches the ways of heresy. Really.
Wrong. They teach the science of evolution at my daughters' Catholic school. There may be a backward program out there, but creationism is not a Catholic doctrine.
I think that Jeb endorses a very lazy sort of tolerance. He fails to distinguish between religious moderates like rkzenrage's parents, and religious extremists like the Creationists. He does not distinguish between evangelicals, who often subscribe to creationism, and the Catholic Church, which says that God used evolution to fashion our bodies. He doesn't want to think about science or faith or the differences between them. He tries to avoid conflict between people who disagree by forcing both to shut up.
He espouses tolerance so that he doesn't have to learn about other people's beliefs -- he already superficially supports them. He writes a blank moral check for creationists and doesn't worry that they're trying to force creationism on school children. He writes a blank moral check for all of Hinduism, says it's all okay, and doesn't see the ugly caste system. He writes a blank moral check for all of Islam, says it's a religion of peace and scientific advancement, and doesn't worry himself about female genital mutilation.
He doesn't have any way to identify what's good and what's bad, nor what's right and what's wrong. So instead he claims that everything is good and anyone who says otherwise is bad.
Finally, he's not an athiest because he doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest because he doesn't want to go to church.
Science has a different kind of tolerance as well. Science can not tolerate Creationism because there is no evidence to support it. Until there is evidence to show that Creationism is a legit possibility, it is placed in the same category as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or the theory where I go back in time 4 billion years, take a dump in a pond, and all of you are the products of my shit.
Science is based on evidence, possibility means nothing to science because there are an infinite amount of possibilities.
I went to work, numbnuts.
And torrere, what's good and what's bad? That is based on individual culture. Who am I to judge a culture. I'm not going to, if there are differences then who am I to tell them off. I'm not going to be a missionary and spread atheism, because why is it necessary. And learn about other people's beliefs, listen, I'm going to be an anthropology major, I come from a very diverse background so I don't like you fucking prejudging my life. Why do all the so called evolutionists and atheists HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD like to be intolerant, because that's the message I'm getting. Lazy tolerance, you don't know me so how about you shut the fuck up ya goddamn fool. I am not that open of a person so I do not disclose openly my lifestyle and what happens but you fucking dolt seem to have written my autobiography and have you it involves religion A LOT and my relationship with atheism is MY OWN and will not have a bunch of other atheists tell me how I should think about tolerance and why other religions are wrong and why they are "bad". I could write a book for creationist arguments but I don't even need to. You atheists and evolutionists here are good enough evidence to support why the mainstream media doesn't support atheism. I'm a goddamn atheist and evolutionist but I will fucking have Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and pagan friends who follow a faith and I do respect each and every one of them as a person, as a human. They are not "bad" they are just different. If you want this place to become a fucking homogenous atheist country then you are just like the neo-cons trying to force God in school.
I went to work, numbnuts... fuck up ya goddamn fool... tell me how I should think about tolerance
LOLZ!!!
I LOVE how you make my point every time you post.
Who cares what you are or who your friends are? No one has mentioned either... that is all in your head.
Cite please.
No one has said shit about what you should think.
Again, cite.
I would love to see what happens to the words when you read them... they must do a crazy dance. I bet it's fun!
Wrong. They teach the science of evolution at my daughters' Catholic school. There may be a backward program out there, but creationism is not a Catholic doctrine.
OMG!!!!!... you told him what to think!!!!!!! :eek:
I think that Jeb endorses a very lazy sort of tolerance. He fails to distinguish between religious moderates like rkzenrage's parents, and religious extremists like the Creationists. He does not distinguish between evangelicals, who often subscribe to creationism, and the Catholic Church, which says that God used evolution to fashion our bodies. He doesn't want to think about science or faith or the differences between them. He tries to avoid conflict between people who disagree by forcing both to shut up.
He espouses tolerance so that he doesn't have to learn about other people's beliefs -- he already superficially supports them. He writes a blank moral check for creationists and doesn't worry that they're trying to force creationism on school children. He writes a blank moral check for all of Hinduism, says it's all okay, and doesn't see the ugly caste system. He writes a blank moral check for all of Islam, says it's a religion of peace and scientific advancement, and doesn't worry himself about female genital mutilation.
He doesn't have any way to identify what's good and what's bad, nor what's right and what's wrong. So instead he claims that everything is good and anyone who says otherwise is bad.
Finally, he's not an athiest because he doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest because he doesn't want to go to church.
Who ever stated what my parents beliefs are?
He made that up on his own... he does that, assumes stuff, or the magic word fairy shows him "things".
I like what you said, but I can break-it-down.
"if you disagree with someone's statements or belief and state that you are disrespecting the person" is what he is saying... UTTER bullshit.
Though I agree with the probability about moral relativism, he has not stated that, so I won't speculate on it.
[youtube]-oI9kI_xc_k[/youtube]
Why do all the so called evolutionists and atheists HERE ON THIS MESSAGE BOARD like to be intolerant, because that's the message I'm getting. Lazy tolerance, you don't know me so how about you shut the fuck up ya goddamn fool. I am not that open of a person so I do not disclose openly my lifestyle and what happens but you fucking dolt seem to have written my autobiography and have you it involves religion A LOT and my relationship with atheism is MY OWN and will not have a bunch of other atheists tell me how I should think about tolerance and why other religions are wrong and why they are "bad". I could write a book for creationist arguments but I don't even need to. You atheists and evolutionists here are good enough evidence to support why the mainstream media doesn't support atheism. I'm a goddamn atheist and evolutionist but I will fucking have Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and pagan friends who follow a faith and I do respect each and every one of them as a person, as a human. They are not "bad" they are just different. If you want this place to become a fucking homogenous atheist country then you are just like the neo-cons trying to force God in school.
Who the fuck rattled his cage? At what point does not wanting creationism foisted onto children through their schools equate to intolerance of other peoples' faiths?
Actually, I really am deeply intolerant of religion. I think it damages us as people to base our lives and our moral codes on fairy dust and the writings of the long dead. Doesn't mean I don't have Christian and Moslem friends. They no doubt see my take on the world as deeply flawed and wilfuly ignorant of the truth. Doesn't mean they can't have atheist friends.....see how that works?
Arrogant, fucking prick. Why are you banging their drum, you alleged-atheist? There's plenty of intelligent, well read, reasonable Christians on this board who can do a much better job of 'defending' their faith from the intolerance of their atheist fellow-dwellars. In fact...you've managed, rather remarkably to unite a very disparate group of people whose views on faith generally are poles apart...
Takes a fair amount to annoy me, but you've succeeded handsomely.
Now, now, Dana, make some tea and pet the dog.
Tolerance is, not fucking with people just because they hold different views.
Tolerance is not, letting people fuck with you, because you have different views.
What the creation activists are doing is fucking with everyone else.
I do not welcome the creationist overlords.
My apologies, that post was somewhat harsh.
*brews a mug of tea and digs out a biscuit for Pilau*
Harsh doesn't make it untrue. Sometimes even more true.
Takes a fair amount to annoy me, but you've succeeded handsomely.
Really? I think they're funny. Perhaps if they actually read and answered other posts I would take them seriously, but they are just trolling, so it's funny.
I don't think it was that harsh.
Class act apologizing.