The only question that matters is...How Many of them are named Steve?

While I refuse to dignify the premise of the thread with a response, I will say that Project Steve !

I said I highly doubt that 64% of Illinoisians (Is that a word?    ) think ID should be taught in school meaning a much lower % would support the movement.  Therefore I used the term "few people" to describe the percentage of residents in Illinois that support the teaching of ID.

 

Yet you mentioned NY and LA to strengthen your original post. Brilliant!

If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that there are 30 letters in the English alphabet, should we teach that?  If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that God does not exist, how would you feel about that?

 

To further this point, there was a point in this countries history where a majority of the population thought discrimination was OK, does that mean if 50% +1 think that blacks or anyone else is an inferior race, that is would be OK to discriminate against them?

To further this point, there was a point in this countries history where a majority of the population thought discrimination was OK, does that mean if 50% +1 think that blacks or anyone else is an inferior race, that is would be OK to discriminate against them?

It depends...on where the majority of the people named Steve ends up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

I promised myself I'd stay away...

 

I'm up to speed on the findings alluded to in your fact #2. And yes, humans have translational mechanisms that upregulate/downregulate and basically get vastly more varied genetic expression out of their sets of DNA blueprints than other closely related species seem to do, despite the gross similarities in their genomes. It's really quite amazing.

 

As for your fact #1 mutation rates of millions of times more than other closely related species, I would be grateful if you could provide me a reference to the primary literature that reported thses findings. I cannot make any informed judgement without seeing the research and the credentials of the investigators.

 

In the end, it's your thesis statement that should not stand unchallenged.

 

These findings support the belief that man is a super-species in stark contrast to other life.  There is no scientific evidence supporting natural selection as the predominant cause for this distinction.

 

What does it mean scientifically to be a "super-species"? (And actually, such a taxanomic designation does exist, at a level above species and below genus, but it is rarely employed and typically means either the systematics lumpers aren't finished lumping or the splitters aren't finished splitting.) Do any of the prmary sources alluded to in facts #1 and #2 use the term "super-species"?

 

As for there being no evidence for natural selection as the filter that allowed the line that gave rise to Homo sapiens to explode on the scene in such grand fashion, squezing so much more out of the expression of their genes, I don't believe that is the case any more that you can say there is evidence that something other than natural selection allowed the line to fluorish.

 

At its heart, all natural selection does is identify those phenotypes that are really, really good (acoording to the environment at the time), and let those pass through selective filters that weed out less fit phenotypes. If a seres of beneficial mutations gave rise to the mac daddy suite of phenotypic attributes taht make humans your "super-species," then it was very likely natural selection that recognized a good thing (in it's blind watchmaker way, of course) and allowed it to persost at the expense of less fit variants.

 

Juggs, please post the primary references for the mutation rate studies you note, and I promise I'll read them, look into the other publicatiosn of the respective research groups, and give them appropropriate consideration.

This reminds me of a book I read called Ishmael. It was good and thought provoking. Juggs would do well to read it.

This reminds me of a book I read called Ishmael. It was good and thought provoking. Juggs would do well to read it.

Call me Moby?

Call me Moby?

No, that's what I thought before I read it, but it's just called Ishmael, pretty interesting read about evolution and relationships with the earth and enviroment. Didn't agree with everything in it, but made me think differently about a lot of stuff.

When does that zero tolerance, immediate banning thing go into effect...?

It's pointless to continue. Not only were both my posts wiped out but so was the quoted reference. Didn't know SOXTALK had thought police.

It's pointless to continue.  Not only were both my posts wiped out but so was the quoted reference. Didn't know SOXTALK had thought police.

I'm equally bewilderd. Guys, what's the deal?

I'm equally bewilderd.  Guys, what's the deal?

 

Personal attacks are not going to be allowed. We have had tons of discussion about this, and calling people and their opinions ignorant falls in that category.

Utter hogwash.  Name a scientific fact on which ID is based.

 

That is not a fact.  It is speculation, completely unsupported by facts of any kind.

 

Again, that is your impression of the issue, not fact.

 

This post has been edited by the Soxtalk staff to remove objectionable material. Soxtalk encourages a free discussion between its members, but does not allow personal attacks, threats, graphic sexual material, nudity, or any other materials judged offensive by the Administrators and Moderators. Thank you.

 

If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that there are 30 letters in the English alphabet, should we teach that?  If 64% of Americans wanted to teach our children that God does not exist, how would you feel about that?

 

Furthermore, what would an ID lesson look like?  What would go into the book?  Would the Bible be a textbook?  What evidence would the lesson include?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And the reason why this post was not wiped out is? :rolly

Edited September 7, 200520 yr by southsider2k5

Personal attacks are not going to be allowed.  We have had tons of discussion about this, and calling people and their opinions ignorant falls in that category.

OK, but it's not being equally doled out. JUGGS' stuff has been called "hogwash" etc., in this thread, but those posts stand, and that's the same as calling his opinion ignorant. It may well be hogwash, and I'm not saying those posts should be scrubbed, but i didn't see any attacks in the missing post that warranted the deletion. Maybe I missed it, I don't know. And if the deletion was at the request of someone who was personally attacked, then ignore all of this.

 

I don't envy you guys your jobs, especially when it comes to being arbiters of acceptability. I'm just trying to recalibrate myself, because there was nothing I read in that post that screamed DELETE to me.

And the reason why this post was not wiped out is?  :rolly

 

Done. Now quit calling people ignorant who don't agree with your opinion.

Done.  Now quit calling people ignorant who don't agree with your opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless someone knows everything we are all ignorant of somethings. I equally noted the hypocrisy in the edit. Mine is completely wiped out (censorship) & the other was selectively modified. :rolly

Unless someone knows everything we are all ignorant of somethings.  I equally noted the hypocrisy in the edit.  Mine is completely wiped out (censorship) & the other was selectively modified.  :rolly

 

Yep you guessed it, the whole crazy wacky liberal athiest Soxtalk world is out to get you.

Unless someone knows everything we are all ignorant of somethings.  I equally noted the hypocrisy in the edit.  Mine is completely wiped out (censorship) & the other was selectively modified.  :rolly

Dude, you're pissing up the wrong tree.

 

DON'T CALL PEOPLE IGNORANT FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT ALREADY KNOW. It's that simple.

Yep you guessed it, the whole crazy wacky liberal athiest Soxtalk world is out to get you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No. It's just someone immature who believes wiping out a fact is better than debating one. :rolly

Dude, you're pissing up the wrong tree.

 

DON'T CALL PEOPLE IGNORANT FOR WHAT YOU MIGHT ALREADY KNOW.  It's that simple.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll try & make the logic simple on this. If you present a fact & someone calls it hogwash without prioviding a factual basis to refute it is that not a demonstration of ignorance?

No.  It's just someone immature who believes wiping out a fact is better than debating one. :rolly

If you would stick to the "facts" as you see them and not call anyone "ignorant" because they don't know something that you think you know, you'd be fine. But, "someone" is too immature to leave out the "ignorant" comments.

 

You're going to be taking a break pretty soon if you can't leave out the "ignorant" comments. Your "facts" are fine. Stick to them, and the "soxtalk world" will be much better. :rolly

I'll try & make the logic simple on this.  If you present a fact & someone calls it hogwash  without prioviding a factual basis to refute it is that not a demonstration of ignorance?

According to the definition of "ignorant", I suppose. But leave it alone, and things will go better. Deal?

According to the definition of "ignorant", I suppose.  But leave it alone, and things will go better.  Deal?

I have to do this.

 

HOGWASH!

 

There.

 

I'm done... and you're writing a book, so this ought to be fun.