Originally Posted By jonvn Oh, gee, here's some more: <a href="http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/05/what-are-transitional-species.html" target="_blank">http://evolution-101.blogspot. com/2006/05/what-are-transitional-species.html</a> So, if you really wanted to know this, you could have looked it up yourself. Maybe you could read this, and learn something instead of pontificating about what science is when you clearly don't have a clue.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper Three problems with the "Global Warming" movement: 1. There is a clear agenda, and the media is portraying the issue as settled ... except for corporations and right-wing "nutcases" who still think the earth is flat. Anyone who opposes it, questions it, or wants continued investigation or debate is now being dismissed as a science-hater. In actuality, global warming activists are now moving to shut-down the very scientific inquiry and discussion they pretend to support. 2. "Global Warming" theories way oversimplify the complex things that have ALWAYS made our planet an ever-changing place, long before we got here. 3. Solutions are one-sided, and politically motivated. Corporations, the United States, and conservatives are being singled-out for punitive action. Kyoto and other environmental movements held the U.S. primarily responsible for saving the earth, while other polluting nations (China, India, etc.) were excused for their contribution to our increasingly dirty planet. On an individual level, George Bush gets slammed on environmental issues no matter what conservation or new fuel program he endorses. Al Gore, on the other hand, is permitted to go globetrotting on a private jet, and left-wing politicians and activists continue to reserve the right to drive SUVs, own huge resource and fuel-gobbling homes, and consume and waste with the best of them ... completely unchallenged. The push behind Global Warming may be noble on the surface, but it is insincere and hypocritical at its roots. All I need to understand the importance of treating the planet responsibly is to see the filth people are leaving at the side of the road, or the cloud of smog that hangs over my city on a still winter day. What I and so many others resent is Gore and company lecturing a few of us about how WE are ruining the planet, and WE (excluding he) are the ones who need to adopt his custom laundry list of environmental actions. We need to take care of our environment. That is just common sense. But it is a shared responsibility, not just a burden to be borne by the political opponents of the left. They take what should be a genuine value, and turn it into a mallet with which to beat their political adversaries over the head. It's time they practice what they preach, and it goes beyond riding in a Toyota Prius to the Academy Awards.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/s cience/02/06/kenya.fossildebate.ap/index.html</a> It's all the rage in kenya. Evolution, that is.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "The push behind Global Warming may be noble on the surface, but it is insincere and hypocritical at its roots." People still believe this kind of stuff?
Originally Posted By jonvn "People still believe this kind of stuff?" Obviously. They ask dumb questions about things that science has understood for over a hundred years, trying to play gotcha games with words that have been discredited since the 19th century. They ask questions about things that can be looked up on the web in 10 seconds, and don't understand the answer. They think "faith" has something to do with science, and they don't know what real science is. They listen to advocacy groups and think that somehow has anything to do with published peer-reviewed information on the matter. What it comes down to is that they do not know what they are talking about. They know so very little about what they are talking about, they don't even realize how stupid some of the things are that they say. Just flat out ignorance. Sciencetists around the world are studying this stuff with a ton of data behind them supporting what they are saying, but that's dismissed with a wave of a hand, and they quote some noname nobody who says no, as if that one person, is somehow going to prove the rest of the scientific community wrong, with nothing behind them to back up what they are saying. It's base ignorance, but it is backed up by rank stupidity, in that logical thinking and an ability to connect the dots is simply missing. These comments are simply pathetic. It's amazing that humans have managed to move out of living in the hollows of trees.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What I and so many others resent is" What you resent is the truth, as far as we know it, and that's all there is to it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>What I and so many others resent is Gore and company lecturing a few of us about how WE are ruining the planet, and WE (excluding he) are the ones who need to adopt his custom laundry list of environmental actions.<< Yes, this is a familiar charge, but what i don't see is very many global warming opponents countering with ideas on how to help the environment. Like your post, you toss it in at the end with a wave of the hand -- we need to take care of the environment -- and then they set out to oppose any and all things that might actually DO that. Propose tougher fuel standards for cars, for example, and that "crushes American industry".
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The irony, of course, is that there's a great opportunity for the US auto industry to get back some of its mojo (and market share) by filling the niche of more environmentally responsible cars. But no, they'd rather fight against the wind, and meanwhile the Japanese will take that niche away too.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Since evolution claims that species develop from simpler species, there should be transitional examples.>> You would also think that there would be some evidence of a newly evolved creature during the past couple thousand years, but nope -- not one to be found.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>If you are talking faith as in believing something is true regardless of evidence supporting or denying it, then no, there is not ["faith" in science].<< Faith is not believing something that cannot be true. It is believing that which is unknowable. In science, much that is currently accepted as theory is based on that which is presently unknowable. >>The only thing childish is these ridiculous statements that science takes things on faith, or that evolution or global warming is a theory, or any other such idiocy. And idiocy it is. It shows a lack of understanding of science, and a lack of logical thought.<< Dogmatism, in any field, is not the result of logical thought. It is the issue of a closed mind. While I certainly appreciate the three minutes that were spent looking at the Wikipedia, I cannot help but notice that the entry is full of the usual language used to cloak statements that are based on, well, faith. "...the discovery of Archaeopteryx only two years later was seen as a triumph..." Note that the discovery is not presented as proof, but rather, is "seen as a triumph." "Gaps remain in the fossil record, however..." "...most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown." Science does not accept this, "most scientists" do. And despite the statement that much will remain unknown (or unkowable), the theory is still accepted. On what basis? Faith. Venturing beyond the confines of the Wikipedia (which tells us that Joe Biden is a swell fellow, by the way), the assertions about Transitional Species are not so cut and dried. It is fairly easy to find entries that confidently assert that they are a fact, as well as those who say they don't exist and never will. Setting aside the ones who claim they don't exist (since we doubtless are in agreement that their arguments are specious), let's take a quick look at an apparently unassailable argument from a blogger who asserts that it is fact. The first article that a Google Search yields (after the ubiquitous Wikipedia) is the DarwinBlog, with an article entitled "Transitional Species in Insect Evolution:" EXCERPT: >>One of the most fascinating things I discovered in this book [Evolution of the Insects by entomologists David Grimaldi and Michael Engel] is that current data strongly indicate that several of the distinct, well-defined, and traditionally recognized insect orders have evolved directly from within other existing orders. Examples are Siphonaptera (fleas) from Mecoptera (scorpionflies), true lice (Phthiraptera) from the order containing barklice and booklice (Psocoptera) (with chewing lice providing a transition to sucking lice), and termites (Isoptera) from cockroaches (Blattaria). It is this last transition that I will discuss here.<< The article then goes into long, detailed, and mind numbing details about roaches and termites, concluding with, "Taken individually these data could be argued or interpreted in different ways; taken together they point to the unavoidable conclusion that, as Grimaldi says in a review of insect evolution, 'Termites are highly modified, social, myopic, wood-eating roaches.'" <a href="http://darwinblog.blogspot.com/2005/12/transitional-species-in-insect_24.html" target="_blank">http://darwinblog.blogspot.com /2005/12/transitional-species-in-insect_24.html</a> Pretty impressive, no? Not so impressive, though, when you realize that the whole discussion is actually about insect evolution within Orders. Orders are not Species. And Species Change is the topic at hand. yet the article in question claims that it is all about Species Change. The Wikipedia entry posits that Archaeopteryx is a "triumph for Darwin's theory." Yet the Wikipedia entry for the creature itself says something rather different: >>In 1862, the description of the first intact specimen of Archaeopteryx, just two years after Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, set off a firestorm of debate about evolution and the role of transitional fossils that endures to this day.<<
Originally Posted By DlandDug AH well. I managed to send another post before its time. More to follow.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>They ask dumb questions about things that science has understood for over a hundred years...<< Questions are at the very heart of true science. To suggest that evolution or global warming are closed subjects is the height of arrogance. To believe that either topic has been settled, one way or the other, goes beyond wishful thinking and squarely into the realm of blind faith. >>They ask questions about things that can be looked up on the web in 10 seconds, and don't understand the answer.<< And if one were to spend only 10 seconds of his time, one would be likely to draw a hasty, and inaccurate, conclusion. >>They listen to advocacy groups and think that somehow has anything to do with published peer-reviewed information on the matter.<< Some of us, however, prefer to look up thinks for ourselves. (None of the arguments I have advanced here this morning were suggested to me by anyone else.) Since Archaeopteryx is the "triumph" of evolutionary theory (not my word), how about a couple of articles about the very real controversy that exists to this day about this unusual creature? I could rush off to the Usual Suspects in the Creationist camp, but I'd rather choose a peer reviewed source. How about a couple of articles from the University of California Museum of Paleontology of the Berkeley Natural History Museums? <a href="http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html" target="_blank">http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/d iapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html</a> EXCERPT: >>A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica...<< A linked item: <a href="http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Environment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html" target="_blank">http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Envi ronment/NHR/archaeopteryx.html</a> EXCERPT: >>So, in the end, what is Archaeopteryx ? Was it a theropod dinosaur or a bird? Could it fly or not? Is it a crucial missing-link or a bizarre offshoot? A legitimate fossil or an artful hoax? The answers to these questions are far from complete but I'll bet that Archaeopteryx will continue to provoke curiosity and debate for a long time to come yet.<< As much as anyone here wants to ridicule those who express doubt about cherished beliefs, the fact is that much of what is accepted is done so by faith. If no sincere effort is made to respect the beliefs of others, there will be no understanding.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Oh, and thanks for providing this gem: >>Oh, gee, here's some more: <a href="http://evolution-101.blogspot" target="_blank">http://evolution-101.blogspot</a>. com/2006/05/what-are-transitional-species.html<< EXCERPT: >>The problem is that there is really no such thing as a transitional species. The reason for this is that all species are transitional species. Now, obviously that sounds like I just contradicted myself, but let me explain...<< I understand perfectly. In the absence of transitional species, simply declare there are no transitional species, that all species are transitional species, but there's really no contradiction in that. And... there's no faith involved either. It's just good hard scientific fact. EXCERPT: >>In the same way that the concept of species can be provisionally meaningful to describe organisms at a single point in time, the concept of transitional species can be provisionally meaningful to describe organisms over a length of time, usually quite a long time, like hundreds of thousands or millions of years.<< In other words, you just gotta BELIEVE that it's true, and then it's probably true. I understand. I have seen the light.
Originally Posted By jonvn "You would also think that there would be some evidence of a newly evolved creature during the past couple thousand years, but nope -- not one to be found." And you base this on...anything? "It is believing that which is unknowable. In science, much that is currently accepted as theory is based on that which is presently unknowable." Well, since what scientists do is believe things based on the best evidence around, and that is subject to change based on new evidence that comes up, then that is not faith. It is not believing in something not knowable. That is simply yet another utterly ridiculous comment. "Venturing beyond the confines of the Wikipedia " Which I did with another link. Basically, you are trying to assert irrationality. You're wrong, and you are attempting to use convaluted logic and circular reasoning to back up your nonsensical claims. "unassailable argument from a blogger" Oh, a blogger. Well, there's an indisputable source...let's base your whole argument, and other arguments, on what this one guy or another says. Like I said. Go learn what this stuff is actually about, so you can stop making at least wholly foolish statements.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Questions are at the very heart of true science." Not ones like yours, which are not science based, but ridiculous by their very nature. Your "faith" comments have been addressed, and yet you persist in making them. You don't know what you are talking about, and you don't understand what's been said to you. So, explain to me the point of discussing it further? Let me help you: There is none. You can't figure it out, and you don't want to bother trying. Your mind is made up, and no amount of fact is going to change it. Truly an individual of "faith."
Originally Posted By jonvn "I understand perfectly. In the absence of transitional species, simply declare there are no transitional species" No, you don't understand. There was provided a giant explanation of what it was, and why it was. You just don't get it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug I understand perfectly, as should anyone who can read and reason for themself.
