BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:37 AM

From a NY Times article on the situation at the Toronto Film Festival - the "Creation" movie was not suffering alone:

The festival began with a gala screening of "Creation," an ambitious, awards-type film from Britain about Charles Darwin that arrived without a United States distributor and on Monday still had none.

At the halfway mark in the 10-day gathering, the vast majority of more than 140 films that showed up in search of American distribution were in the same boat, according to a count by the Indiewire news service.

~ Becky in Tucson

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 10:41 AM

Charles Darwin was one of the great scientists and minds of the last century.
Richard Dawkins is a modern interpreter of Darwin.
Dawkins is trying to reason with religios who have forced their ideas down
the public's throat. Dawkins is a tree of reason in a desert of religious aridity.

It's another example as to how religion holds back enlightenment and clings to
ignorance.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Amos
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:38 AM

"The pace of human evolution has been increasing at a stunning rate since our ancestors began spreading through Europe, Asia and Africa 40,000 years ago, quickening to 100 times historical levels after agriculture became widespread, according to a study published today.

By examining more than 3 million variants of DNA in 269 people, researchers identified about 1,800 genes that have been widely adopted in relatively recent times because they offer some evolutionary benefit.

Until recently, anthropologists believed that evolutionary pressure on humans eased after the transition to a more stable agrarian lifestyle. But in the last few years, they realized the opposite was true -- diseases swept through societies in which large groups lived in close quarters for a long time.

Altogether, the recent genetic changes account for 7% of the human genome, according to the study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The advantage of all but about 100 of the genes remains a mystery, said University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks, who led the study. But the research team was able to conclude that infectious diseases and the introduction of new foods were the primary reasons that some genes swept through populations with such speed.

"If there were not a mismatch between the population and the environment, there wouldn't be any selection," Hawks said. "Dietary changes, disease changes -- those create circumstances where selection can happen."

One of the most famous examples is the spread of a gene that allows adults to digest milk.

Though children were able to drink milk, they typically developed lactose intolerance as they grew up. But after cattle and goats were domesticated in Europe and yaks and mares were domesticated in Asia, adults with a mutation that allowed them to digest milk had a nutritional advantage over those without.

As a result, they were more likely to have healthy offspring, prompting the mutation to spread, Hawks said.

The mechanism also explains why genetic resistance to malaria has spread among Africans -- who live where disease-carrying mosquitoes are prevalent -- but not among Europeans or Asians.

Most of the genetic changes the researchers identified were found in only one geographic group or another. Races as we know them today didn't exist until fewer than 20,000 years ago, when genes involved in skin pigmentation emerged, Hawks said. Paler skin allowed people in northern latitudes to absorb more sunlight to make vitamin D.

"As populations expanded into new environments, the pressures faced in those environments would have been different," said Noah Rosenberg, a human geneticist at the University of Michigan, who wasn't involved in the study. "So it stands to reason that in different parts of the world, different genes will appear to have experienced natural selection."..."LA Times

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:39 AM

Many of my fellow Americans are very scarily ignorant of reality and even more scarily wedded to biblical literalness. It is really, really scary. Only here, that I know of, is knowledge so denigrated. Is "brainiac" (someone who gets good grades) an insult in any other culture?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Doktor Doktor
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 11:46 AM

Swipe me thats a hot topic.

For a nation that once prided itself on academic achievement and scientific progress, the vision we now get of America is of redneck hicks digging themselves back to the 16th Century. Its pretty bad publicity, but a worse outlook - if the USA abandons science we're all going to feel the shock.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Alice
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:10 PM

As one Sarah Palin supporter said, "She talks down to our level".

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: longboat (inactive)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:14 PM

AS Richard Bridge says IE are closely tied to the petrochemical industry.
They have an agenda and that agenda isn't eco-friendly.

China Russia India Italy and Brazil
They aren't going to be super-enthusiastic about Evolution because, Italy and Brazil are Catholic countries and the church is extremely powerful in both of those countries. The Russiian Orthodox Church's power is growing again and they have similar ideas to the Catholic Church, China is officially aetheist and look upon Darwin as reactionary. India, I admit, I have no idea how they would react, mind you their film industry makes Hollywood look like a Mom and Pop operation

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 12:56 PM

Evolution as not envisioned by Darwin-

Lehman Brothers goes bust, and Barclay Capital (UK) and a Japanese investment company quickly grab the assets and become large players in the capital investment field, the former launching 'Enhanced FX Algorithmic Trading'. A successful mutation for them, extinction for Lehman.

Seeking cheaper cost, Michelin Tire moves most of its production to China, but sees the U. S. apply a 35% tax on Chinese-made tires. One step forward, two steps back, on the evolutionary tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 07:04 PM

Remember the time when Dr Borlaug was working on the increase in yields and resistance to disease - the use of chemicals was the way of the future, once the primary problems were overcome the resulting high yeilds were protected by the use of weedkillers and artificial fertilisers.

Looking back knowing what we know now, it might seem controvertial, but back then it was the cutting edge of technology.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Sep 09 - 09:44 PM

I did an essay on evolution in the 8th grade and was sent to the Principal's office for punishment and my parents had to have a meeting at school.

One criticism is that I said " Man and other mamalian animals..."
\I was told man is not an animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Rumncoke
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 08:41 AM

They were wrong.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:10 AM

In Britain, the term is not brainiac, but boff, from boffin, once a term of respect, if amused respect, for what we owed the eccentric and clever. It isn't just the States.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,Penny S.(elsewhere)
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:31 AM

Sinsull, the creationist writings I have seen on website discussions will answer the incest question about A & E's children as follows. 1. God had not yet forbidden incest so it was permissible. 2. Because they were so close to the perfection of creation, arguments about the harm of close kin breeding are invalid.

Boggle, if you will.

Penny

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 11:53 AM

Three years of bible institute, and I never heard those particular rationalizations about reproduction in the earliest generations. We mostly just scorned those who were unspiritual enough to raise the question. We "realized" that "there are some things we just aren't able to understand"
I wonder whether I'm the only one hanging out here who has committed intellectual suicide and lived to tell about.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 16 Sep 09 - 10:44 PM

I love it when creationists attempt to couch their beliefs in logic. Why bother? If you have a story whose foundations are based entirely upon magic, why attempt to use logic to explain away its inconsistencies? Just pull in a little more magic! Adam and Eve's boys need wives? No problem! Just change a couple of nanny goats into women! Anyone who could make a woman out of a man's rib can pull that trick of easily!

To paraphrase Bill Maher in Religulous: Imagine you were to grow up without any exposure to either the Bible or fairy tales. Now, imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 12:52 PM

Bee-Dubya-Ell asked, in part

imagine you were given copies of both "Jonah and the Whale" and "Jack and the Beanstalk" to read. Now imagine that, after reading them, you were told that one tale was part of a religious belief system and was considered by millions to be literally true, while the other was a made up story intended for children. Would you be able to tell which was which?

While I follow your drift, and agree, the actual answer to your question is "Yes".

One story expressly ties the action to a god; the only departure from worldly reality is the existence and power of the god. The other one does not, and its hero is a child (or at least a teenager), and it is filled with multiple free-floating marvels, such as the overnight bean "tree", the giant and giantess, the self-playing-and-singing harp, the gold-laying hen. Given the alternative choices, of connections to either a religious belief system or a children's story, the answer is obvious.

Your real point, though, is that the departure from experiential reality is great in each instance, and you are of course right in that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:10 PM

for a bit of fun, best viewed in full screen

http://www.youtube.com/user/wordweaver58#play/all/uploads-all/0/9_5VpIISMRQ

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 03:51 PM

Thanks, V. Tam. My first laugh of the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 04:37 PM

I feel it is safe to say that a film distributor is going to be concerned first and foremost with profit potential.

There are plenty of Darwinians to go around, and I think there'd be a way to market the film to pretty much everybody (like getting Mel Gibson to narrate, for one thing).

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: robomatic
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 05:45 PM

Worth watching for the insanity- I'm not convinced it's serious, maybe it's planted by an environmentalist 'false flag' operation:

the banana of God.









-Praise Bob-

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: frogprince
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:05 PM

Robo, I wasn't sure either, but youtube brought up a follow-up video that sure seems to indicate that the one you linked was meant in all seriousness.

I wonder if the guy has thought about anything else that's perfectly shaped to fit into the human mouth?...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Stringsinger
Date: 17 Sep 09 - 08:49 PM

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree). Christianity is not a scientific fact.

Irreconcilable difference here?

When did the world begin? Were Adam and Eve really dinosaurs?

You see the problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 18 Sep 09 - 09:59 AM

Stringsinger said, (quite correctly):

Here's the problem. Evolution is a scientific fact. (All reputable scientists unanimously agree).

But that's confusing to some, because they don't understand the difference between "evolution" and (usually Darwin's) "theory of evolution".

A theory is an attempt at a systematic rational explanation of a complicated set of facts.   As in "the theory of torts" in the law, or "nuclear theory", or "music theory". No one conversant with those fields has any doubt of the existence of the underlying facts, but there's varying amounts of room for elaboration or fine tuning of the theories relating to those sets of facts.

To say "theory" does not mean "speculation", as is often used in the phrase "a mere theory" as so many creationists are fond of dismissively phrasing it.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Mr Happy
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 08:57 AM

Louisiana Senator's understanding of evolution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQObhb3veQA

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:05 AM

Yup, USA is definitely aomalous:

http://calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559

click


And Song of the Dodo was written by David Quammen, and it is a brilliant recounting of the Darwin-Wallace race to publish a theory of evolution, and highlights many modern examples of evolution. Great book.

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 10:06 AM

my speeling is also anmololous...

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 11:00 AM

All is not hopeless in Louisiana (but it is on shaky ground when Creationists think they can vote bad thinking into schools)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 02:31 PM

Had a Freudian slip there, Tia. Thought I'd read "Calamites of nature". :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Evolution ... or perhaps not ...
From: BrendanB
Date: 23 Jan 13 - 06:09 PM

Well at least that is better than catamites of nature - I think.....