NOW WE KNOW FOR SURE OSWALD DIDN'T JFK
Ed
FIRST THIS . . .
<
JFK ASSASSINATION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/altgens2.jpg
<
NOW THIS . . .
<
FORMER FBI AGENT REVEALS
NEW ANGLE ON JFK ASSASSINATION
<
http://www.infowars.com/former-fbi-agent-reveals-new-angle-on-kennedy-assassination/
<
Humbly submitted by
Ed Conrad
(aka The Ignorant Bastard)
http://www.edconrad.com
<
================
<
ED's OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO MANKIND
<
MEET THE REAL 911 TERRORISTS
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.ed-conrad/msg/86eb91e36bd404b0
<
MAN AS OLD AS COAL
http://www.edconrad.com
<
CANCER CURE CONSPIRACY
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.letterman/msg/29e5efa37c129adf
<
PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATH
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Miracle.jpg
http://edconrad.com/lifeafterdeath
<
CORRUPT GOSPELS
http://www.avilabooks.com/Jmmanuel.htm
http://www.tjresearch.info/
<
THE FIRST MAN ON THE MOON?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XBAxdKVRE
<
ALIENS SCARED SHOUTLESS OF EARTHERS
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/ab1c23098ef2f8a5
<
FOUND -- THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6fdfcf44f5207df
<
BEST GHOST PHOTOS EVER TAKEN
http://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/
<
<
< HERE COME THE JUDGE
<
Here is an updated list of the organizations and individuals
participating in the class-action lawsuit against Ed Conrad.
<
Smithsonian Institution
Penn State University
60 Minutes
The Estate of Charles Darwin
Harvard University
Johns Hopkins University
University of California-Berkeley
Al Einstein
Al Qaeda Al-Qaeda al-Qaida al-Qa'ida
American Academy of Arts and Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Anatomists
Cast of Operation Repo
American Anthropological Association
Billo Reilly Glenn Beck Sean "Ins" Hannity (joint entry)
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
American Medical Association
Zinkag 41 (Autonomus Unit Zinkag 41, brood assemblage Delta 64)
American Museum of Natural History
American Civil Liberties Union ACLU
Liz Cheney
American Society for Investigative Pathology
American Society of Human Genetics
Geological Society of America
L'Osservatore Romano
Paleontological Research Institute (PRI)
Billy Graham
Federation of American Scientists
Science Nature Omni Penthouse magazines
Smithsonian Custodial Employees (Local 666)
Gov. Ed Rendell
New England Journal of Medicine
Paul PZ Myers University of Minnesota
Michelle Malkin
Raymond Rye II
Geraldo Rivera
British Petroleum BP
Roger Cuffey
Larry King (But you can call me "The")
Pope Benedict XVI c/o The Vatican
Wayne Clough Secretary of Smithsonian
Stephen Hawking
Stephen Colbert
Sen. John Boner
The Estate of the Leakey Family
American Board of Forensic Anthropology
American Journal of Pathology
Rudy Giuliani
Michele Bachmann
American Medical Association
The Grim Reaper
American Society for Investigative Pathology
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
Father Guido Sarducci
Mother Teresa
Association for Molecular Pathology
talk.origins (David Iain Greig, moderator)
sci.bio.evolution
College of American Pathologists
C-span
Cornell University Medical College
Forensic Files
GWB, Crawford, Texas (name withheld by request))
International Academy of Pathology
NBC
Rupert Murdoch
ABC
U.S. Geological Survey
Taliban Federation
Fox News
MSNBC
CNN
New England Journal of Medicine
Opponents of Intelligent Design
sci.med.pathology
Karl Rove
Canadian Association for Physical Anthropology
Cleveland Museum of Natural History
Tiger Woods
Institute of Human Origins
Society for Medical Anthropology
Kenneth and Gloria Copeland
American Journal of Pathology
Alexander Emmanuel "A-Rod" Rodriguez
American Society of Primatologists
Orly Taitz
National Primate Association
La Brea Tar Pits, Los Angeles
Oral Roberts
British Petroleum BP
Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center
Gorilla Foundation
The Banana Republic
AAA (Amalgamated Atheists of America)
Jimmy "Jimbo" Wales, founder of Wikipedia
Chris Matthews
Rachel Maddow
Michael Moore
Ann "Douche Bag" Coulter
Bill Maher
WikiLeaks
Oliver Stone
Smithsonian Snack Shop staff
Time Magazine of Science
President Obama
Anderson Cooper
Pamela Anderson
New York Times
New York Daily News
Reno 911 Police Dept.
New York Post
New York Daily Mirror
Newsday
Newsweek
Washington Insider
Philadephia Inquirer
The Nation
Former President Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Karl Walmart
Meet the Press
David Gregory
eBay Stores
PBS
Rosie O'Donnell
To Catch a Predator on American Idol
National Enquirer
National Lampoon
Washington Post
Sean Penn
Wall Street Journal
The View
Jeff Rense
U.S. News and World Report
60 Minutes
Roswell (N.M.) Chamber of Commerce
Arianna Huffington
David Letterman
Charles Manson
Matthew Mark Luke and Jack
<
Most recent FBI photo of The Ignorant Prick
http://www.edconrad.com/pics/Dartboard.jpg
Hagar
bumped him, he would have been kicked out at the next election, just
like the hopey & changey Nigger will be.
Useless means useless in any language or ethnic color. The guy was an
egomaniac and so is O'Bummer. I do hope NOBODY bumps him ...
we don't need yet another phony asshole martyr. Let him dig his own
grave in 2012 ... the ballots will send him there.
Michelle can always get a job when they revive "Sanford & Son II",
as Aunt Esther.
Telescreens and Soylent Green courtest of the obamanation
> <
> NOW THIS . . .
> <
> FORMER FBI AGENT REVEALS
> NEW ANGLE ON JFK ASSASSINATION
> <
> Humbly submitted by
> Ed Conrad
> <
> ================
> <
> ED's OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO MANKIND
> <
> <
> PROOF OF LIFE AFTER DEATHhttp://www.edconrad.com/pics/Miracle.jpghttp://edconrad.com/lifeafterdeath
> <
> <
> THE FIRST MAN ON THE MOON?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9XBAxdKVRE
> <
> ALIENS SCARED SHOUTLESS OF EARTHERShttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.education/msg/ab1c23098ef2f8a5
> <
> FOUND -- THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMINGhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c6fdfcf44f5207df
> <
> BEST GHOST PHOTOS EVER TAKENhttp://paranormal.about.com/od/ghostphotos/ig/Best-Ghost-Photos/
Good post ... the info about Miltier has been around for a long
long time. There are 2 news
groups that are still actively discussing and going round and
round. My favorite LHO moment
is when one of the reporters at the Police Station yelled out to
LHO ..
" Did you kill the President ?" Ozzie says w/o a blink of the
eye ..stone cold ...
" No I didnt shoot anybody.. and I have not been accused of
anything yet ....and I do
request that a lawyer come to help me ..."
Finally - It is obvious that LHO had
something going on .. that Morning of the 22nd. He left his
Wallet and money and
some other items --- INCLUDING HIS WEDDING RING, at the
house where
Maria would find them.
dh
consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
countless possibilities.
If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
deliberate influence behind it.
Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
dinosaurs began changing into birds?
Peter Alaca
Steven Bornfeld
(snip)
If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
Antibiotic resistance.
Steve
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
Jack Linthicum
First off that isn't a knee it's the equivalent of our ankle.
"To keep their centre of balance when walking birds have evolved to
have their equivalent of our thigh held permanently close to the body.
The leg does not start to extend out from the body until after the
knee joint which is never seen. The backward bending leg joint that
you see in bird's legs when they are walking is the equivalent of our
ankle. A bird's foot is the equivalent of the tips of our toes. Thus
the part of a bird's leg that looks like its shin is actually the
equivalent of the arch of our foot."
VtSkier
> I'll begin by saying I'm a weak agnostic who tries to
> consider the possibility of God's existence realistically.
> Everything could have developed as it is without the need of a
> God to make it happen imo, so he may not exist. That covers that
> end of it. Then again he might exist, which explodes into
> countless possibilities.
The ethical agnostic might say, and I believe some
medieval agnostic did say in so many words, "I don't
know if God exists or not, but I will live my life
as if he does."
>
> If God exists it seems clear that he made/makes use of
> evolutionary methods of creation. I believe the Earth is billions
> of years old, and fossils show us creatures and things that
> happened during the time periods that scientists say they did. It
> appears that creatures did evolve. But from my pov it also seems
> that the evolutionary process had help. For one thing steps
> appear to be too great to have happened on their own gradually
> without deliberate influence. For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc... The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on as it did in the past, but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
Read more recent writing about evolution and think about
some concepts like 'punctuated evolution' and about how
little difference in DNA there really is between species.
Evolution is apparently NOT a slow steady process where
things change from one to another slowly over time. It is,
to anthropomorphize a bit, opportunistic. If an ecological
niche opens up, organisms will change rapidly to exploit
that niche.
>
> Side question: The reptiles and dinosaurs I've seen depicted
> have rear legs with their knees in the front of their rear legs,
> while all birds I'm aware of have knees in the back of their
> legs. Does that help narrow down which particular reptiles or
> dinosaurs began changing into birds?
Birds, by and large are digigrade, that is, they walk on their toes.
This means that what you see as a knee going 'backwards' is
really a heel. Their knee is the joint between the thigh meat
and the drumstick.
Let me illustrate further. Look at a deer. It has what might
be termed a knee which faces backward. Same with a horse.
The long bone between the hoof and this backward 'knee' in
a horse is called the 'cannon bone' and is actually a foot
bone, on of the tarsals.
Now look at a bear, or a racoon, or a human. They all walk
with the complete foot on the ground including the heel.
These animals are called 'plantigrade'. Their knee
appears to be in the "right" place.
So the reptiles you are referring to are plantigrade. Look
at some renderings of velociraptors sometime. You will see
that they are being shown to be partly digigrade, not
unlike rabbits.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> For another, it seems that if it
> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
> etc...etc...
Why would you expect this? Keep in mind that every species is both
fully evolved for its present niche, and (potentially) transitional to
some successor species.
Feathers, for example, evolved because even in their earliest versions
(probably mutated scales) they afforded their possessors with a slight
competitive advantage. It may well be that similar sorts of mutations
are constantly arising in some reptile species or other, and do not
provide a competitive advantage today. In that case, they either will
die out with the individuals who possess them, or they will continue
as-is if they do not interfere with the possessor's ecological
economy.
> The same should be true of all such things like
> mammals becoming sea creatures
Whales. have completed the transition. Seals and walruses may be in
the process of becoming full-time sea creatures.
> and aquatic animals becoming land
> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
> clear examples of it always going on
...which we do
> as it did in the past,
Here's where you make your mistake. Evolution is a historical,
contingent operation. It does not evolve toward some future goal; it
operates in the here-and-now, via natural selection acting on mutation
and genetic drift. You would not expect to see, for example, another
Abraham Lincoln arise in exactly the way the original did, through the
same stages, arriving at the Presidency and Civil War. The environment
has changed. Someone might have a history that had some similarities
with Lincolns, yet he might not get elected to state office. If he
did, he might not get elected to the House of Representatives. If he
did, he might not be elected President. If he did, his history might
not help trigger a Civil War. If it did, he might not rise to the
war's demands as Lincoln did. If he did, he might have planned a harsh
subjugation of the South post-war. He might not have been
assassinated. And so on, with innumerable permutations.
It is true that mutation and genetic drift is going on, and selection
is working on the products. But the environment provides the
constraints on what is selected for and what is selected against.
History, Santayana to the contrary notwithstanding, never repeats
itself, either in human events or in biological evolution. That you
seem to think it does suggests you need to read a bunch more on the
contingent, historical nature of biological evolution.
> but
> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
> deliberate influence behind it.
In fact, if you could look back at today from a point maybe a hundred
thousand years in the future, you would not hold this view. In fact,
if you look back say a hundred thousand years from now, you will see a
great weight of evidence of evolutionary change over time. Each of
those changes would have involved a fully-functioning population as-
is, and the same population transitioning to something new.
It's a wonderful life!
<snip>
Desertphile
wrote:
> The ethical agnostic might say, and I believe some medieval agnostic did say
> in so many words, "I don't know if god exists or not, but I will live my life
> as if he does."
How, and why, in the world does someone live as if the gods exist?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Steven Bornfeld
I can understand how it might SEEM to, in cases of convergent evolution.
>
>> but
>> instead there are few or no examples. Even if there were only a
>> few hundred it would be different, but the fact that there are
>> extremely few or none is evidence that evolution had some
>> deliberate influence behind it.
>
> In fact, if you could look back at today from a point maybe a hundred
> thousand years in the future, you would not hold this view. In fact,
> if you look back say a hundred thousand years from now, you will see a
> great weight of evidence of evolutionary change over time. Each of
> those changes would have involved a fully-functioning population as-
> is, and the same population transitioning to something new.
>
> It's a wonderful life!
>
> <snip>
>
Nicely done!
dh
<kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Aug 31, 11:03 am, dh@. wrote:
>
><snip>
>
> > For another, it seems that if it
>> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>> etc...etc...
>
>Why would you expect this? Keep in mind that every species is both
>fully evolved for its present niche, and (potentially) transitional to
>some successor species.
>
>Feathers, for example, evolved because even in their earliest versions
>(probably mutated scales) they afforded their possessors with a slight
>competitive advantage. It may well be that similar sorts of mutations
>are constantly arising in some reptile species or other,
If it happens by itself there should be a number of similar
things going on all the time.
>and do not
>provide a competitive advantage today. In that case, they either will
>die out with the individuals who possess them, or they will continue
>as-is if they do not interfere with the possessor's ecological
>economy.
>
>> The same should be true of all such things like
>> mammals becoming sea creatures
>
>Whales. have completed the transition. Seals and walruses may be in
>the process of becoming full-time sea creatures.
How does a hole in the top of the head that a mammal can
breathe through just "evolve" without any deliberate help? And if
it could, why don't we see any evidence of it going on today? Are
we to think that some of the offspring of developing water
mammals just happened to have holes in the top of their head, and
that some of those with holes just happened to be connected to
their respiratory system, and that some of those with holes that
happened to be connected to the respiratory system also had
muscle and whatever around the holes so they could close them?
For me that seems much more unrealistic than that there was some
sort of deliberate influence.
>> and aquatic animals becoming land
>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>> clear examples of it always going on
>
>...which we do
Oh. Then what are they?
Tom McDonald
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
> <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 31, 11:03 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> For another, it seems that if it
>>> happens on its own there should always be examples of things like
>>> reptiles in various stages of beginning to grow feathers, and
>>> others in various stages of beginning to grow wings, and some
>>> that are warm blooded and set their nests, and feed their young
>>> etc...etc...
>>
>> Why would you expect this? Keep in mind that every species is both
>> fully evolved for its present niche, and (potentially) transitional to
>> some successor species.
>>
>> Feathers, for example, evolved because even in their earliest versions
>> (probably mutated scales) they afforded their possessors with a slight
>> competitive advantage. It may well be that similar sorts of mutations
>> are constantly arising in some reptile species or other,
>
> If it happens by itself there should be a number of similar
> things going on all the time.
Today's environment is different from that of the time when feathers first
evolved. As I noted, environment dictates what products of mutations, and
genetic drift, are selected for. The niches into which early feathered
dinosaurs evolved either do not exist anymore, or are filled by creatures
better adapted than the throw-backs to survive today.
So it is likely that many mutations and products of genetic drift arise in
all populations today, many of which mimic (but are not identical to) those
which arose hundreds of millions of years ago. With the much-changed
situation today, such throw-back experiments should, and do, almost always
result in failure today.
>> and do not
>> provide a competitive advantage today. In that case, they either will
>> die out with the individuals who possess them, or they will continue
>> as-is if they do not interfere with the possessor's ecological
>> economy.
>>
>>> The same should be true of all such things like
>>> mammals becoming sea creatures
>>
>> Whales. have completed the transition. Seals and walruses may be in
>> the process of becoming full-time sea creatures.
>
> How does a hole in the top of the head that a mammal can
> breathe through just "evolve" without any deliberate help? And if
> it could, why don't we see any evidence of it going on today? Are
> we to think that some of the offspring of developing water
> mammals just happened to have holes in the top of their head, and
> that some of those with holes just happened to be connected to
> their respiratory system, and that some of those with holes that
> happened to be connected to the respiratory system also had
> muscle and whatever around the holes so they could close them?
> For me that seems much more unrealistic than that there was some
> sort of deliberate influence.
You, of course, are free to think anything you want. But if you desire to
learn how things came to be, according to the science of biological
evolution, you need to study some.
I'd suggest, to help answer your question about the movement of nostrils
from the face to the top of the skull, you take a look at articles on whale
evolution on-line. This Wikipedia article is a good start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans
As does this one on Ambulocetus:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambulocetus
One thing to keep in mind is that the linked changes that lead from, for
instance, the amphibious Ambulocetus to modern whales took a very, very long
time, and included many quite small changes. Each change helped the
fully-evolved creature that had it survive somewhat better than its fellows
and competitors; and at the same time was transitional to the next stage of
cetacean evolution.
>>> and aquatic animals becoming land
>>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>>> clear examples of it always going on
>>
>> ...which we do
>
> Oh. Then what are they?
There are several varieties of air-breathing snakehead fish. The one that
has the best on-land locomotion (still not very efficient) is the one
spreading fastest into new environments in the USA. The most efficient large
snakeheads will colonize the furthest inland waters, and will probably wind
up retaining the greater air-breathing capacity and improved locomotion that
got them there.
In the UK, a species of mosquito has evolved that can only survive in the
London Underground (subway).
A species of bacteria evolved recently that can eat nylon, a relatively new
invention, that no other bacteria can eat.
As I noted, seals and walruses may be in the process of evolving to full
marine living, as did cetaceans somewhat earlier. (See links.)
IIRC, sea otters have a number of features that distinguish them from land
otters, and function to help them live nearly full-time in the ocean. Again,
an example of a creature fully adapted to its environment, yet evolving
features that could wind up being used by its descendants to live at sea all
the time.
But of course, none of this will matter if you are committed to maintaining
your current view about the need for a God of the Gaps. (Even if you don't
call it that, that's the technical term for the view that evolution
functions on the small scale, but some sort of intelligent designer is
required to get over a notional barrier [not shown to exist] to large-scale
phenotypic change.)
--
Tom
VtSkier
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:50:26 -0400, VtSkier<VtS...@nospam.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The ethical agnostic might say, and I believe some medieval agnostic did say
>> in so many words, "I don't know if god exists or not, but I will live my life
>> as if he does."
>
> How, and why, in the world does someone live as if the gods exist?
Uhm, no, not quite.
The quote that I'm paraphrasing is from Renaissance
philosopher Blais Pascal who is a Catholic of a very
conservative strain. He has an idea of what God expects
of him. The point of view of this statement is from a
believer and a believer from a particular time and place.
This is strictly a yes/no, black/white, is/isn't question.
There are no gray areas for this philosopher or his
statement. Either God, as portrayed by Medieval/Renaissance
Christianity exists or he doesn't.
George
> How does a hole in the top of the head that a mammal can
> breathe through just "evolve" without any deliberate help? And if
> it could, why don't we see any evidence of it going on today?
Ever seen flounder fry ?
Absolutely no different from any other immature fish.
Until they develop into the two eyes on the top that we see as a
characteristic of the flounder.
The blowhole in marine mammals has developed with their -evolution- to
be in the best possible position for their species..
We see evolution every winter when people get their 'flu shots.
We see evolution when the miracle antibiotics are rendered useless by
inherited resistance.
The same with HIV/AIDES ..
Evolution is going on all round you
Whiskers
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
> <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Aug 31, 11:03 am, dh@. wrote:
[...]
>> Feathers, for example, evolved because even in their earliest versions
>> (probably mutated scales) they afforded their possessors with a slight
>> competitive advantage. It may well be that similar sorts of mutations
>> are constantly arising in some reptile species or other,
>
> If it happens by itself there should be a number of similar
> things going on all the time.
There are. No two individuals of the same species are identical (not even
'identical twins' or 'clones'); the differences are small, usually
(although some species such as domesticated dogs are remarkably varied),
and in the present it isn't possible to predict which small difference
might or might not give that individual some sort of extra advantage over
its fellows in some unforseen circumstance that might arise in the future.
Sometimes a trait that seems to be a disadvantage (such as
short-sightedness or a huge array of tail-feathers) can end up 'being
selected for' (by being able to spot smaller green shoots when grazing
head-down in the dry grass, or by getting a chance to breed with more of
the opposite sex because they happen to like fancy tails).
You won't be able to spot the ancestor of some new species while it is
living; but you might be able to trace back the 'genes' of one species to
indicate which older species it probably 'evolved from'. If any remains
of that older species happen to have survived and been identified and have
any 'genes' that can be compared.
[...]
>>Whales. have completed the transition. Seals and walruses may be in
>>the process of becoming full-time sea creatures.
>
> How does a hole in the top of the head that a mammal can
> breathe through just "evolve" without any deliberate help? And if
> it could, why don't we see any evidence of it going on today? Are
> we to think that some of the offspring of developing water
> mammals just happened to have holes in the top of their head, and
> that some of those with holes just happened to be connected to
> their respiratory system, and that some of those with holes that
> happened to be connected to the respiratory system also had
> muscle and whatever around the holes so they could close them?
> For me that seems much more unrealistic than that there was some
> sort of deliberate influence.
Some individuals had their noses nearer the top of their heads than
others (it happens all the time, just look around at other humans for a
start). That meant they could breathe without having to emerge so far
from the water, which meant they could spend more time feeding or burn
less energy breathing, and that meant those individuals were slightly more
likely to live long enough to breed and pass in the 'high nose' trait.
Repeat in each generation for countless generations, and eventually (if
the environmental niche continues to be worth filling) you'll have a
generation all of whose members have their noses right on top of their
heads. There is no need for anyone to decree 'let noses be on top of the
head', let alone interfere with the genetic information passed from one
generation to the next to make it happen.
>>> and aquatic animals becoming land
>>> creatures...etc...etc... Mudskippers are so old they don't count,
>>> other than by the fact that we don't see examples of them in
>>> various stages of evolving into land creatures either. The same
>>> is true for lungfish, and maybe/maybe not for walking catfish. If
>>> evlotion happens by itself it seems we should see a number of
>>> clear examples of it always going on
>>
>>...which we do
>
> Oh. Then what are they?
Ever banged your head on the door-frame of a medieval house? Europeans
tend to be taller now than then. That's a trivial change, and probably
not yet detectable as a genetic trait, but if an environmental niche
appears in which tall humans can breed a little better then perhaps in a
million years or so there will be an identifiable new species of tall
hominids; possibly living alongside a similar species which happens to be
shorter and filling a slightly different niche. Or perhaps the tall and
less tall types will remain a single species able to interbreed etc but
living in slightly different places where tallness or shortness is
'better'. Rather as happens right now with regard to melanin and
sunshine.
Perhaps you've heard of the species of moth that likes to hang out on the
trunks of big trees, and had thus evolved to have wings that imitated the
colour and pattern of the trees they liked. Then along came the
industrial revolution and the soot and smoke made the trees all go black,
which meant the pale moths tended to get eaten more often than their
slightly darker kin. So the darker ones had more offspring, and lo and
behold within a bout 100 years that species had evolved from being pale
greyish brown to being dark grey or black. Then humans cleaned up their
act a bit, the soot fell off the trees, and now those dark moths are
having such a hard time not getting eaten that the species is well on its
way to being pale coloured again.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Jack Linthicum
My wife recommends that you go to a dog show. Find out what the origin
of the various "breeds" are are and how they have to meet certain
standards. All evolution, helped along by selective breeding, Darwin
might object but its the process he described.
Whiskers
The essential difference being that whereas humans use their
'intelligence' to select what traits to breed into or out of the dogs (or
cows or pigeons etc) natural evolution has no goal in mind - indeed has no
mind; traits are filtered out or in according to whatever disadvantage or
advantage they happen to provide for the breeding of the individuals that
possess them.
Desertphile
wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 12:31 PM, Desertphile wrote:
> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:50:26 -0400, VtSkier<VtS...@nospam.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The ethical agnostic might say, and I believe some medieval agnostic did say
> >> in so many words, "I don't know if god exists or not, but I will live my life
> >> as if he does."
> > How, and why, in the world does someone live as if the gods exist?
> Uhm, no, not quite.
>
> The quote that I'm paraphrasing is from Renaissance
> philosopher Blais Pascal who is a Catholic of a very
> conservative strain. He has an idea of what god expects
> of him.
If the gods expect something from humans, why don't the gods say
what? And why should humans obey them? If the gods demand evil
acts from humans, they should not be obeyed.
I cannot imagine how anyone could life a different life based upon
what the gods want; it makes no sense.
> The point of view of this statement is from a
> believer and a believer from a particular time and place.
You mean the statement does not apply to anyone.
> This is strictly a yes/no, black/white, is/isn't question.
Since the statement makes zero sense, there is no answer at all.
Questions must be asked before the statement can conform to
reality.
What behavior would be different if the gods want humans to behave
differently? And how would we know? And why would we agree?
> There are no gray areas for this philosopher or his
> statement. Either god, as portrayed by Medieval/Renaissance
> Christianity exists or he doesn't.
If the Christian gods exist, they have not bothered to tell us
anything. How, then, can someone modify their behavior based upon
what the Christian gods want?
You are not making any sense.
VtSkier
I am not making an argument for any belief system.
I am pointing out the point of view of the person
who made it many years ago. If your point of view
does not allow for others to have a varying point
of view, I'm sorry for you.
By the way, the Christian God, as purportedly
recorded by men does tell people how to live and
what is ethical and what is not.
I'm not here, however, to promote anything, I am
just a student of history and am interested in
the way people thought in the past and how it
relates to the present. No more, no less.
Desertphile
wrote:
You are the clown speaking for dead people.
> By the way, the Christian god...
.... you mean "The Christian gods....
> ...as purportedly
> recorded by men does tell people how to live and
> what is ethical and what is not.
No they don't.
VtSkier
Your point being?
>> By the way, the Christian god...
>
> .... you mean "The Christian gods....
whatever
>
>> ...as purportedly
>> recorded by men does tell people how to live and
>> what is ethical and what is not.
>
> No they don't.
Yeah, it/they do. Just because you belive that
the rules are a scam (which in many cases I also
believe) doesn't mean that the rules don't exist.
LloydB
> On 09/03/2010 04:13 PM, Desertphile wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> On 09/02/2010 11:21 AM, Desertphile wrote:
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 09/01/2010 12:31 PM, Desertphile wrote:
Let's all take the pledge:
"The next time some unregistered troll cross-posts
a pseudo-religious 'evolution' thread to an uninterested
and off-topic usenet group... I will RESIST.
And if too tempted to RESIST, I will consider trimming
the unrelated group(s) when responding."
Mike Ramirez
Jack Linthicum
>
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100824132357.htm
Mosquitoes: Genetic Structure of First Animal to Show Evolutionary
Response to Climate Change Determined
The pitcher plant mosquito develops entirely within the water-filled
purple pitcher plant. (Credit: William Bradshaw and Christina
Holzapfel)
ScienceDaily (Aug. 24, 2010) — Scientists at the University of Oregon
have determined the fine-scale genetic structure of the first animal
to show an evolutionary response to rapid climate change.
They used a high-throughput sequencing technique called Restriction-
site Associated DNA (RAD) tagging to make the discovery.
Their results, which focus on the pitcher plant mosquito, Wyeomyia
smithii, are published this week in the journal Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
RAD tagging is an effective and straightforward way of barcoding
sections of genomic material, much as grocery items are coded at the
local supermarket, say the scientists.
"This project demonstrates the power of genomics technologies, which
can provide new knowledge about the vast array of Earth's species,"
says Sam Scheiner, program director in the National Science Foundation
(NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology, which funded the research.
"Although this small mosquito has become the poster child for genetic
response to climate change," says William Bradshaw, one of the paper's
co-authors, "its evolution during post-glacial invasion of North
America has been a question."
Using the RAD-Tag approach, the scientists have demonstrated that post-
glacial populations of Wyeomyia smithii originated from a southern
Appalachian Mountain refugium after recession of the Laurentide Ice
Sheet some 22,000 to 19,000 years ago.
Range expansion into the previously glaciated north proceeded in a
sequential, ordered wave rather than by a "hit-or-miss" hopscotch
process, the biologists found.
With this detailed information, they will be able to determine the
genetic mechanism underlying photoperiod response to rapid climate
change--responsible for the correct timing of dormancy, migration,
development and reproduction in temperate organisms.
The knowledge will act as a template for research on blood-feeding in
mosquito vectors of dengue, encephalitis and malaria.
The mosquito in question lives within the water-filled leaves of the
purple pitcher plant, Sarracenia purpurea, also known as the side-
saddle flower, whose range includes the eastern seaboard of the U.S.,
the Great Lakes and southeastern Canada.
Sarracenia purpurea is the most common and widely distributed pitcher
plant, and is the only member of the genus that inhabits cold
temperate climates. Where the purple pitcher plant is found, so, too,
is Wyeomyia smithii.
Before the time of Darwin, biologists sought links between apparently
related groups of plants and animals with an eye toward understanding
the world around us.
Relatedness was first described primarily as similarity in
morphological characteristics: broad groupings of organisms were
classified into orders, families and genera, much like one describes
resemblance among one's extended family.
Early classification of organisms became more refined as
developmental, physiological and behavioral observations were
incorporated into these broad categories.
With the revelation of gene-based relationships, the search for an
increasingly detailed understanding of genetic patterns became a
driving force throughout all biological disciplines.
New technologies heralded new advances. "We have now arrived at an era
in which genetically similar groups can be clustered quickly and at
very low cost to effect a near-endless number of applications," says
William Cresko, also a co-author of the PNAS paper.
Researchers can accurately describe genome-wide variation to shed
light on evolution at the population level, to predict patterns of
invasion of species during rapid climate change, and to correlate gene-
based illnesses with susceptible human populations on a local or
worldwide scale.
"The RAD-Tag protocol has increased the resolution of genetic
relatedness among populations by 100-fold over previous molecular
approaches," says Bradshaw.
"Along with the ability to illustrate the fine-scale phylogeographic
patterns in species with few or no prior genomic resources," he says,
"this technique will have applications in fields from ecology and
evolution to human behavior and medicine."
dh
The Galapagos tortoises are a good example, and the iguanas.
>Repeat in each generation for countless generations, and eventually (if
>the environmental niche continues to be worth filling) you'll have a
>generation all of whose members have their noses right on top of their
>heads. There is no need for anyone to decree 'let noses be on top of the
>head', let alone interfere with the genetic information passed from one
>generation to the next to make it happen.
Maybe that's how it would be done.
I was aware of that one as well. It still seems there should
be a lot more clear examples like that going on all the time if
it just happens by itself. I'm not saying that it does not happen
by itself, but that it still appears that sometimes it had some
help. And we know it did even if not from God or whatever
intelligence, but just from some rocks that bumped into the
planet.
dh
So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
take it into consideration.
John Harshman
This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
> So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
> take it into consideration.
Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
it's always possible, if we assume that an omnipotent god exists, that
he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
Friar Broccoli
> dh@. wrote:
>
> This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
> directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
> > So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> > not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> > take it into consideration.
>
> Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
> your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
> he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
> way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
> heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
> planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
> of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
For those of you who were as confused by this post as me, Harshperson
is repling to this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/f180104c04e7fe4c
John Harshman
dh@'s many faults is annoying crossposting.
Whiskers
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:35:27 +0100, Whiskers
> <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2010-09-01, dh@. <dh@> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
>>> <kil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Aug 31, 11:03 am, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>> Feathers, for example, evolved because even in their earliest versions
>>>> (probably mutated scales) they afforded their possessors with a slight
>>>> competitive advantage. It may well be that similar sorts of mutations
>>>> are constantly arising in some reptile species or other,
>>>
>>> If it happens by itself there should be a number of similar
>>> things going on all the time.
>>
>>There are. No two individuals of the same species are identical (not even
>>'identical twins' or 'clones'); the differences are small, usually
>>(although some species such as domesticated dogs are remarkably varied),
>>and in the present it isn't possible to predict which small difference
>>might or might not give that individual some sort of extra advantage over
>>its fellows in some unforseen circumstance that might arise in the future.
[...]
>>You won't be able to spot the ancestor of some new species while it is
>>living; but you might be able to trace back the 'genes' of one species to
>>indicate which older species it probably 'evolved from'. If any remains
>>of that older species happen to have survived and been identified and have
>>any 'genes' that can be compared.
[...]
>>Perhaps you've heard of the species of moth that likes to hang out on the
>>trunks of big trees, and had thus evolved to have wings that imitated the
>>colour and pattern of the trees they liked. Then along came the
>>industrial revolution and the soot and smoke made the trees all go black,
>>which meant the pale moths tended to get eaten more often than their
>>slightly darker kin. So the darker ones had more offspring, and lo and
>>behold within a bout 100 years that species had evolved from being pale
>>greyish brown to being dark grey or black. Then humans cleaned up their
>>act a bit, the soot fell off the trees, and now those dark moths are
>>having such a hard time not getting eaten that the species is well on its
>>way to being pale coloured again.
>
> I was aware of that one as well. It still seems there should
> be a lot more clear examples like that going on all the time if
> it just happens by itself.
Variation between individuals is the visible expression of genetic
variations. Some of those variations might help or hinder the
individual's breeding success; over time, those that hinder it will tend
to vanish from the species while those that help will tend to become more
common. That is 'evolution'.
> I'm not saying that it does not happen
> by itself, but that it still appears that sometimes it had some
> help. And we know it did even if not from God or whatever
> intelligence, but just from some rocks that bumped into the
> planet.
'Evolution' has no goal, no awareness, and no purpose. It needs no
guidance (although humans have exploited the mechanisms in breeding
domesticated plants and animals). Individuals do not evolve but
populations can, over successive generations.
A natural catastrophe such as planets colliding will inevitably create
living conditions that did not exist before; evolution may lead to new
species to fill the new niches - or it may not; chance also plays a part.
Day Brown
for 100 million years, and those we know commonly jump into the water at
the first sound of danger.
But the backwoods roads have mudholes that generations of frogs evolved
in. In the horse and buggy days, the frogs jumped into the water, but
since the advent of motorized vehicles moving at higher speeds, we now
see the tadpoles swim to the edges of the mud hole and the frogs jump
out of the water and into the bushes.
Kaufmann, The Origins of Order explains why some species evolve rapidly
while others dont at all. Fragmented ecosystems and isolated small
populations rapidly evolve, but like the mud hole frogs do so in obscure
locations so you dunno its going on.
The original Aryan creation myth had it that Chaos was first, not go.
And that eventually what we call a self replicating form emerged. Gaia.
Who is still evolving. There's no claim that She is omnipotent or
omniscient, but as you mite infer from Lucretius' 'The Nature of the
Universe" the Goddess keeps the lights on.
Burkhard
> dh@. wrote:
>
> This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups. That's why I've
> directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
> > So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
> > not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
> > there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
> > take it into consideration.
>
> Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
> your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch?
Urrgh! Mentioning miracles and milk together is a high risk strategy
in a NG that has a poster of the name Ganesh making chance
appearances. It can cause serious gridlock.
dh
<catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
It certainly seems we should see more signs of it going on
today. Really there should be a lot more fossil examples as well.
There aren't very many fossil examples of reptiles or anything
else becoming birds for example. So it seems that there should be
more than no examples--a LOT more--today as well as a lot more
fossil records.
>> I'm not saying that it does not happen
>> by itself, but that it still appears that sometimes it had some
>> help. And we know it did even if not from God or whatever
>> intelligence, but just from some rocks that bumped into the
>> planet.
>
>'Evolution' has no goal, no awareness, and no purpose. It needs no
>guidance (although humans have exploited the mechanisms in breeding
>domesticated plants and animals). Individuals do not evolve but
>populations can, over successive generations.
It sure seems like there should be a lot more examples today
and also from the past, if it always just happens by itself.
dh
<dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've seen evolution in my neck of Ozark woods. Frogs have been around
>for 100 million years, and those we know commonly jump into the water at
>the first sound of danger.
>
>But the backwoods roads have mudholes that generations of frogs evolved
>in. In the horse and buggy days, the frogs jumped into the water, but
>since the advent of motorized vehicles moving at higher speeds, we now
>see the tadpoles swim to the edges of the mud hole and the frogs jump
>out of the water and into the bushes.
Interesting. I noticed one myself. When I was a child in
grade school I noticed that black birds on the side of the road
would fly off whenever a car went by, even if the car was in the
lane on the other side. I remember mentioning that to my Dad.
Then after noticing it for a few years I finally saw one in that
position that did not fly off. As time went on I noticed it
happening more and more frequently instead of never, until
finally it became so common I don't even notice any more.
dh
<jhar...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>dh@. wrote:
>
>This really is inappropriate for all the sci groups.
That's not for you to decide.
>That's why I've
>directed it back to talk.origins. Please try to keep it there.
>
>> So far I don't know whether to believe there is a need or
>> not. And whether there is a need or not, the possibility that
>> there was deliberate help still exists imo so I must continue to
>> take it into consideration.
>
>Do you take that into consideration in everyday life? If the milk in
>your refrigerator goes sour, do you look around for a witch? Of course
>it's always possible, if we assume that an omnipotent god exists,
5. Since the terms omnipotent and omniscient appear to make
themselves impossible, it's unrealistic to try assigning those
particular characteristics to God if he exists.
>that
>he has interfered in anything whatsoever. But science can't work that
>way. Hypotheses for which there is no need are rejected. Have you ever
>heard of Occam's Razor? Sure, invisible angels could be moving the
>planets, but it's more parsimonious to suppose that the impersonal force
>of gravity does it. The same for evolution.
That it is all impersonal is one possibility. There are
countless others however, even if you can't appreciate a single
other one.
Tom McDonald
Why? You've been given a lot of food for thought, but you don't seem
to have chewed it over very well; and you certainly haven't digested
it.
Jack Linthicum
I could cite that woman running for Senator who says that monkeys
aren't evolving into humans nowadays. There she is an excellent
example of just that ambition concept.
VtSkier
So I'm thinking that you are really trying to get
evidence for the lack of same about evolution.
Nobody with half a brain question the existence
of evolution in the plant an animal kingdoms.
Having said that there is a LOT of discussion about
how evolution progresses. Darwin said slow and steady.
Recent discoveries suggest punctuated equilibrium.
Exactly what happens to change an organism to adapt
to its environment has also received a lot of
attention lately. Interestingly there is very little
genetic difference between us and the most lowly
creatures. Lots of genes are the same. This brings
up the question of turning some genes on and off,
for instance and other questions.
If we are in a period of equilibrium, and a lot
of evidence says this is so. A bison skeleton from
8000 years ago is indistinguishable from a bison
skeleton from today. Climate and ecosystems have
not changed much from then 'til now. The inference
is that a change in ecosystems is required to get
evolution going and organisms changing. Will
global warming be enough to cause this to happen
in some areas of the planet? We don't know and
won't know 'til after it happens. Further,
humankind has taken control of some of the
evolutionary forces and that control may make
change more difficult. Or it may make change
easier, again we don't know.
Jack Linthicum
> On 09/27/2010 02:10 PM, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:56:02 +0100, Whiskers
>
> >> On 2010-09-07, dh@.<dh@> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 23:35:27 +0100, Whiskers
>
> >>>> On 2010-09-01, dh@.<dh@> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 16:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Tom McDonald
Going to be interesting to watch which of the Arctic wildlife survives
as the ice disappears.
Whiskers
> On Wed, 08 Sep 2010 19:56:02 +0100, Whiskers
> <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
[...]
> It certainly seems we should see more signs of it going on
> today.
Could you describe what "signs" we should expect to see (other than those
already described in this thread which you seem to reject).
> Really there should be a lot more fossil examples as well.
Processes do not leave fossils; only individuals can.
> There aren't very many fossil examples of reptiles or anything
> else becoming birds for example.
No reptile ever became a bird.
> So it seems that there should be
> more than no examples--a LOT more--today as well as a lot more
> fossil records.
Fossils are rare; they almost never form. Living individuals are almost
exactly like all the others of their species. There is not and never has
been and cannot be an individual that is 'evolving'.
[...]
> It sure seems like there should be a lot more examples today
> and also from the past, if it always just happens by itself.
[...]
Ever had the 'flu? Or a bacterial infection? Does the term 'drug
resistant' ring any bells? When was HIV first recorded?