packsaddle

If there was ever a more passive-aggressive color than grey I don't what it is, but silver is a close second. It's a politically-correct color for someone who is afraid to make a statement but didn't have one to make in the first place and feels the fear anyway in order to pretend they did. Obviously not your color, Moosetracker, you must not have had much choice. Delinquent?! H'mmmmm......OK, I'm good with that one. Edit: NJ, this is a living example of evolution. No telling where the thread will be in another week.

So...do you have photos? What kind of car? What color is it? Was the engine running? What was the time of day? How about the windows, were they rolled up? Was the radio on? What kind of clothes were you wearing? Were there any pine trees nearby? How about willows? Just a few of the critical questions.....

Peregrinator, how did things work out for that guy? Edit: I thought Pandora was Barbara Eden's mom. Edit - 2: SSScout, do you think it would make any real difference if there WAS a faith and chaplaincy forum?

Moosetracker, I evidently failed to answer that other question you had about Darwin's earlier life. His wife was Unitarian and he attended the Unitarian Church regularly. But I am most persuaded by the observations that are mostly presented on this website: https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/what-did-darwin-believe-article I believe they have a persuasive argument that Darwin's letters are more revealing than his books..about what he 'believed'. My personal opinion is that he was most certainly undecided early in his life and became less undecided with age - sound familiar? But I am not convinced that his avowed agnosticism late in life means anything more than that he remained undecided....and therefore perhaps also remained open to new evidence...like the scientist he was. Edit: Oops, that was 'wife' not 'mother'.

Yes, a regrettable and flawed association. The interpretations were what gave that support, as you say, not the idea itself. Do you think perhaps that bad persons, who are already inclined to harmful actions, might look for a rationalization to provide support or to deflect responsibility? In the past I have argued that because the racists I grew up with often justified their racism on the basis of scripture, that in itself did not mean that religion or those particular scriptures were therefore to blame. To me what it means is that they were racists who wanted to justify their prejudice. Their interpretations of scripture were supportive of their racist views, not the scripture.

Darwin was a self-avowed agnostic. Edit: "I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind.†Writing on the origin of the universe he stated, "I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic." Darwin

TAHAWK, look around and you can see plenty of examples of the grotesque things we've bred. I have never understood why we do that but the phenotypic plasticity of species is quite amazing for many organisms.

'Race' in the sense used by Darwin refers to a subpopulation that has identifiable phenotypic differences that do not necessarily qualify for 'species-level' designation. In taxonomy the nomenclatural term of 'variety' or 'form' is sometimes used. In the distant past (Darwin's time) the term 'race' was also used in taxonomy. In sub-disciplines of organismal biology, terms like 'associations' or other terms borrowed from human sociology are also sometimes applied but they have almost none of the meaning as used in sociology. In Darwin's case, the 'races' he referred to applied to all organisms. You are making the assumption that it was directed specifically at the illusory concept we apply to humans and although he was aware of that and may well have reflected the prejudices of his time, you are misinterpreting its use in that particular example. His first use of the term 'race' in the book, for example, is worded: "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage", which as we know today includes cabbage, brussel sprouts, cauliflower, and broccoli, all the same species. Later in the book he refers to "the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants", none of which has the human connotation in mind. Darwin was fervently opposed to slavery and this caused great trouble for him at times. I think that in your desire to find fault you're finding it when it doesn't exist, at least in this case. Edit: Peregrinator, in many ways I'm still larval, lol.

Those chimps are already banging away in Irving and making new guidelines and policy. Stosh, ignore the atheists if that's what you perceive them as doing. There is nothing they can say that will shake true faith. If they seem to be attacking ideas you and others hold to be truth, that is their right to do that just a it is the right of the religious to proselytize to the unfaithful. As for the topic of 'evolution', one element of the process is the existence of genetic and phenotypic variation. Mutations are merely one source of this variation. They, mutations, themselves are not evolution but they do contribute to the overall process. Adaptation is another essential part of the process and that is the result of natural selection acting on phenotypic and genetic variation. Of course, in order to have adaptation there must also be variation in environment and habitat, which is easy to envision. When all of this is combined it composes the system of change we call 'evolution' in the simplest of terms. Complexity in this process arises quickly and while complexity can be found in all of the parts off the process, it can be illustrated for one of them: mutations. There are a huge number of potential mutations that can happen various places in the genome and they occur for different reasons at different rates, sometimes very rarely and sometimes they are 'repaired' by the mechanisms that cells have adapted in order to overcome the effects of mutations. Moreover, not all of the phenotypic variation that is acted on by selective pressures is due directly to genetics but arises through the interaction of variable genetically-based regulatory mechanisms involving the interaction between several, or even clusters, of genes. This is an exciting area of genetics that is still expanding. But when you consider the complexity, some of which we are still discovering, of the part involving mutations and genetics, and then combine that complexity with the multitude of different potential ways organisms can adapt to a multitude of different conditions, you can begin to grasp how difficult the subject of 'evolution' really is. When you consider that some kind of selective process operates at nearly every level of biological organization, for example starting with the ability of cell membranes to regulate the transport of different molecules, or the way cells 'recognize' other cells at the molecular level....and then work your 'telescope' on complexity up through the way tissues work, then whole organisms, then population growth or interactions, then through organismal behavior, and then through the way these communities of interacting populations are constantly adjusting to their changing environments....the selective process is operating simultaneously at all these levels..and more. NOW you can begin to understand why 'physics', in comparison, is like comparing the game of checkers (physics) to 'n-dimensional' chess (biology). And this is why, for example, those who are exploring the field of genomics are also adept at using vast computational tools because those are necessary to achieve what little understanding we now have. BUT, it all, all of it, arises from that simple evolutionary model that Darwin envisioned in a flawed way but which, even to this day, continues to be corrected and improved. That is why Dobzhansky said what he did about biology and evolution. Quazse, I also enjoy using a pocketwatch metaphor to communicate the concept of 'holism' and 'emergent properties' as opposed to 'reductionism' and 'mechanistic determinism'. Some of the students 'get' it, some don't. Kind of like me and romance. I don't 'get' it, never did, probably never will, lol.

Stosh, thanks for confirming. Moosetracker, Yeah, that life's beginning thing. Science doesn't know how this happened. I am always amazed when someone refutes some fictitious "claim by science" that there is one origin or another. That critical thinking error is one in which a fact that is not in evidence is assumed so that it can be refuted. There ARE plenty of speculations, some of them interesting and possibly plausible. But they remain speculations. Yes we can demonstrate how certain conditions can cause the synthesis of complex organic or other molecules. And we can find evidence for their existence in the geological record. But we don't conclude, on that basis, that THAT is what happened. We don't know and I doubt we ever will. We can only state a reasonable possibility. But if anyone really needs to fill the gap regarding the origin of life, then they're free to fill that need with a faith-based belief. No problem. We don't have to know about the origin in order to study what happened after. And that is what we do. To somehow connect evolution to the question of the origin of life is further evidence of lack of understanding of both evolution and the speculations about origins. As for those students, they are assessed on their own merits, or lack thereof. I confess that I dislike grading people more than any other aspect of this job and that's where I take on a student-like quality....procrastination, lol.

Thanks everyone, I seriously just had to go cook something and eat it after just reading the posts so far. Pavlov lives.

Moose, it isn't necessary for you to be able to "talk turkey" on these subjects. What is necessary is a genuine, honest desire to have an objective and honest discussion and to try to understand. Science is available to anyone. It does take some work and probably time, depending on what aspects interest you. But people have to want to do that 'heavy lifting'. Most don't, or so it seems. Edit: This is one reason I like undergraduate students. They are still (OK, you're going to laugh) 'innocent' in some ways. Stop laughing. I am ok with the fact that you want to discuss these things. 'Rusty' is something that can be remedied with a little oil and some exercise.

Out of class briefly and I can tell you...this whole discussion does not give me great confidence in our scientific literacy if this forum is representative of the general public. If you have a room with an entomologist, a bryologist, a palynologist, ,a malacologist, a phycologist, a herpetologist, an ornithologist, a microbiologist, ....you get the idea...and ask them to define 'species', you'll get a number of responses that exceeds the number of scientists in the room. If you leave them alone the discussion will go on longer than this thread. Most of you would misunderstand much of the discussion. When I was still in the larval stage I listened to my mentors as they laughed and said that a species is whatever a competent taxonomist says it is. Which bothered me then and it still bothers me. Today I like to rake graduate students 'over the coals' by requiring them to explain what "units of selection" are. These concepts seem simple superficially but when you go 'under the hood' they get exceedingly complex. The discussion goes to the heart of the foundations of biology. Graduate students are particularly easy prey because they often come into the discussion cocky and 'full of ..it'. They often leave humbled and wondering if their career just ended. I like that outcome. It's a good thing to know that at any moment you could end up greeting people at WalMart. Folks, when you have mastered multivariate analysis and combined those skills with molecular genetics and cladistics, just to start, then you will be prepared to address some of these things. To make things simple (I hope) for Stosh, any change in the gene frequencies in a population counts as some level of evolution. That is the simplest definition - change in gene frequencies. Speciation is way over on the other end of the spectrum. The logic of the process has never been successfully challenged. In the example cited by Merlyn (and me a while back)...in which Lenski followed 12 identical populations of E. coli for more than 60,000 generations (so far), it's worth reading his publications. This was only one of several lines of research that have shown actual contemporary evolution. (of course, we've been applying these principles in the development of crops and animal husbandry for a very long time...sometimes without knowing it). Unless the very existence of science is considered to be an attack on religion, science itself does not attack anything other than testable hypotheses. If anyone thinks that the inability of religion to construct a testable hypothesis is a weakness of religion, then THEY are the ones who are diminishing religion, not science. Religion cannot be addressed by science. At best science is neutral about things it cannot address. At worst it is indifferent. Edit: Here's a link to the paper presenting the results after only 20,000 generations: http://lenski.mmg.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2003,%20JME,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf

About those frogs: in case anyone wanted to know, they're not mutations at all and this is fairly well understood. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribeiroia_ondatrae And this is just the tip of a much larger topic area involving parasite ecology. Yes, wikipedia...for the primary literature go to the citations. Edit: The earth IS flat. As evidence I invite any of you to merely get a map of the world and unfold or unroll it onto a table. See? Flat.

Dobzhansky answered your question best. By the way, life 'began' billions of years ago. It has continued and still continues to this time. Our gametes are very much alive and human.

Sam's Club. I have no idea why.

Moosetracker, I do live in that belt and there are many legislators who regularly try to change the science standards (only for biology) to require faith-based ideas to be taught alongside science. Thus far they have failed, largely due to the monumental embarrassment they suffered in the Dover, Pa decision. I once attended one of the legislative meetings in which one of these individuals asked, "What IS science anyway?" and another noted that as far as he was concerned the Bible was all the textbook anyone needed. This was a committee specifically chosen to provide oversight over the quality of educational standards for the state. Not a single other committee member could answer the first question for the guy. There was, in attendance, at least 12 professional scientists. We were not allowed to speak. Welcome to the South.

If someone manages to get the pin for a debit card (only 4 digits for many cards) they can clean out the account and there is only the best wishes of the bank to protect you from this fraud. With a credit card, even with the worst bank you are only going to be liable for the first $50 of the loss at most. Moreover, many credit cards also have a guarantee regarding the purchase and if the vendor doesn't follow through after running the card, you can file a claim and do a charge-back. Not necessarily so with a debit card. With a check, a signature can be forged, as noted, but unless it is a perfect forgery, there is a record of it (this is from personal experience) and once the check is established (more easily with 'mickey mouse' as the signature) to be fraudulent, the bank is liable for the entire loss and the account will be restored. I've experienced this. With a pin there isn't necessarily any evidence other than your claim.

Well I don't know of any biologist who has made such a claim in the first place. Moreover, I don't know of any such lab simulations of it, either. I HAVE seen some entertaining fantasies like those in the movies though.

Moose, you're obsessing! Go to the forum at this link: http://scouter.com/index.php/forum/44-welcome-to-scouter-forum/ Now look at the middle title: "Forum Support and Announcements" Now scan across to the right for the cluster of info: Protected Forum By Stosh 23 Apr 2015 OK, now stop obsessing. Edit: NJ and I were posting at the same time. I'll leave this one anyway.

And lock it, I did. Stosh was not involved in that particular situation. Since the member who created the OP did not object and has not requested it to be opened, I left it locked. As far as i can tell, NJ has it right.

I actually think National is correct on this and I agree with DuctTape. That said, it is not a 'prohibition' but merely discouragement...'caveat emptor' of sorts, we're responsible for our own decisions. I have never had a problem with debit cards. This is because I never, ever use them.

And I agree.

Well, Sentinel, Stosh, would you mind telling the rest of us which one it is? Assuming it IS the one I locked, I had good reason. I'm willing to release it if you guys want me to. I think the parties who were involved got the point...I hope. Edit: OK, it's not the one I terminated. And it is 'Protected', not locked, the "Forum Support and Announcements". You need a password to get into it. Looks like the administrators created it and have limited the access. I have no idea what that has to do with Stosh, if anything.