 | | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
Ah, after hearing the classic creation vs. evolution debate, I'd like to make a few points, both scientific and religious: Evolution, in the purest sense, does occur. Life adapts to its surroundings all the time. I remember the example of a white (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) Many scientists have no problem with God achieving his goals through evolution. My mother was a physical anthropologist and firmly believed in God. However, others feel it is necessary to prove God exists, and evolution neither confirms or (...) (24 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Mormon bashing again
|
|
(...) I just had a thought on that "God doesn't play dice" phrase. If we truely have free will, then you bet that God plays dice (we'd be a living example). So...yeah...just thought I'd throw that one out there. (24 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Aaron Hines writes: I remember the example of a white moth that lives on beech (...) I thought that was as a result of a coal-burning power plant opening in the area. And soot deposited on the trees. And for the record, (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) Right. But that's not the whole story. IIRC, the moth population had 5% dark moths, who were eaten quickly because of the white beech tree (ie, they had no camouflage). The black color, was, I think, a mutation (or perhaps a recessive gene? I (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: evolution (was Re: Mormon bashing again)
|
|
(...) <snipped a bunch> Shiri's description is very good, I'll elaborate on a few points. The moth in question is the Peppered Moth(_Biston betularia_). Before the industrial revolution, the predominant form seen in the woods of England was white (...) (24 years ago, 6-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Ok everyone, raise your hand if these guys are making you feel dumb too. It amazes me that you all knew which moths were being talked about. Man, some people are just too smart. :) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) *blinks* I was almost about to post about the difference between Lamarkian and Darwinian evolution until it was cleared up by the later poster. But, for the fun of it, the example of Lamarkian evolution would be that the giraffe's neck grew (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) sorry :) I was an evolutionary ecology major in college, this stuff was drilled into my head. my wife says I talk about in my sleep. :) (...) Finches in the Galapagos. For a good pop science book on this, read "The Beak of the Finch." -Chris (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) We did, but it didn't necessarily help--the Lysenko variant of Lamarckian genetics was eagerly taken up by Stalin and his totalitarian regime--"New Socialist Man" ring any bells? It was something that appealed to him because it implied that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) This moth story is the standard subject under evolution chapter of high school biology books here. I don't think too much people remembers it though..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?" Darwin and some of his contemporaries did create the theory of evolution through natural selection, one of the first (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Well, the fittest *individuals* don't survive forever, obviously. What really survives, past one lifetime, are the fittest *genotypes*. -- John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D. Department of Structural Biology Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) Ack! >_<;; I took "The evolution of human nature" (aka intro to sociobiology) which the first third of the class focused on "real" evolution. Then in my "history of anthropology" (aka anthro theory) class, we started out with some of the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
|
(...) And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined that term. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
