Welcome to the Piano World Piano Forums
Over 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers (it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

SEARCH
the Forums & Piano World

This custom search works much better than the built in one and allows searching older posts.
(ad 125) Sweetwater - Digital Keyboards & Other Gear
Digital Pianos at Sweetwater
(ad) Pearl River
Pearl River Pianos
(ad) Pianoteq
Latest Pianoteq add-on instrument: U4 upright piano
(ad) P B Guide
Acoustic & Digital Piano Guide
PianoSupplies.com (150)
Piano Accessories Music Related Gifts Piano Tuning Equipment Piano Moving Equipment
We now offer Gift Certificates in our online store!
(ad) Estonia Piano
Estonia Piano
Quick Links to Useful Stuff
Our Classified Ads
Find Piano Professionals-

*Piano Dealers - Piano Stores
*Piano Tuners
*Piano Teachers
*Piano Movers
*Piano Restorations
*Piano Manufacturers
*Organs

Quick Links:
*Advertise On Piano World
*Free Piano Newsletter
*Online Piano Recitals
*Piano Recitals Index
*Piano Accessories
* Buying a Piano
*Buying A Acoustic Piano
*Buying a Digital Piano
*Pianos for Sale
*Sell Your Piano
*How Old is My Piano?
*Piano Books
*Piano Art, Pictures, & Posters
*Directory/Site Map
*Contest
*Links
*Virtual Piano
*Music Word Search
*Piano Screen Saver
*Piano Videos
*Virtual Piano Chords
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >
Topic Options
#723696 - 11/12/04 10:06 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
Piano & Music Accessories
#723697 - 11/12/04 01:50 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Sorry nunatax, I'm leaving work right now and I dont have time to respond, but I will as soon as I get a chance. It got real busy here the last few hours, so dont think I am ignoring your question...have a good one.
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723698 - 11/12/04 03:27 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
JOE SCHMOE Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/30/04
Posts: 102
Loc: Ohio, US
Actually, there I heard somewhere that their brain is slightly different in one section - just what I've heard... this is not in anyway shape or form against homosexuality, it's just what I've heard.
_________________________
"If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music."

-Gustav Mahler

Top
#723699 - 11/12/04 06:12 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Nunatax,

Its good to know that you dont have a position on the origin of homosexuality, it makes our debate alot more productive when I know where you are coming from. So saying that, I digress...

A)I know about population genetics, alleles and all that. I have studied genetics, but whether you like it or not, two white parents are not going to have a black kid, recessive genes, dominant genes, doesn't matter. The reason I brought that up was because it is one reason showing why homosexuality is not genetic. Two heterosexual parents aren't going to have a homosexual kid...in the end, there isn't any proof on either side, because the genetic origin of homosexuality is still a THEORY.

B) We are both arguing the same thing. I said that a species can not survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, using homosexual behavior. You were arguing that a species can survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, with homosexuals in the population.

We agree with each other there, so that point is done.

C) I didn't say you cant deny that it is a natural defection, people can have any opinion they want.

D) Look at B.

Finally, you haven't pointed out any flaws in my base. You have twisted my words, and misunderstood my words, but every rationale I have used is a legitimate base for my opinion.

Also, I wish you would address the selective discrimination issue, but I can see why you wont: no one can. There is hypocritical, selective discrimination going on all the time, and no one wants to talk about it. Many people are jumping on the homosexuality band wagon, calling it 'tolerance'. You support homos or you are a bigot is the message I usually hear. And that is hypocritical to the Nth degree.

There is a glimmer of hope, and that is that every state that had the homosexual marriage issue rejected it on an average of 70%.

I would appreciate it if you didn't personally cut me down, because when you do it temps me to drop to your level, and it also shows you have run out of intelligent talking points.

Some people believe homos are born that way, some thing its a disorder. You know my stance and I have given you many reasons why I believe that way, without even addressing the biblical aspect.

Anything else?
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723700 - 11/12/04 06:24 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
I thought this was a thread about terrorism and the consequences of re-electing GWB not another thread sidetracked onto issues concerning homosexuality. Can't that be a different thread?
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#723701 - 11/12/04 08:38 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Renauda Offline
5000 Post Club Member

Registered: 04/16/02
Posts: 5066
Apparently not. :rolleyes:
_________________________
"The older the fiddle, the sweeter the music"~ Augustus McCrae

Top
#723702 - 11/13/04 05:05 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
A)I know about population genetics, alleles and all that. I have studied genetics, but whether you like it or not, two white parents are not going to have a black kid, recessive genes, dominant genes, doesn't matter. The reason I brought that up was because it is one reason showing why homosexuality is not genetic. Two heterosexual parents aren't going to have a homosexual kid...in the end, there isn't any proof on either side, because the genetic origin of homosexuality is still a THEORY.

B) We are both arguing the same thing. I said that a species can not survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, using homosexual behavior. You were arguing that a species can survive WITH homosexual behavior, as in, with homosexuals in the population.

We agree with each other there, so that point is done.

C) I didn't say you cant deny that it is a natural defection, people can have any opinion they want.

D) Look at B.
[/b]
a.

OK, I'll walk you through this step by step.
You know why a black couple will never have a white baby? Because the two loci of the gene that codes for their skin colour, are both taken by the allele that codes for black skin colour. There IS no allele that codes for white skin colour there. OK, I guess you can easily follow up until now.
What happens to a black male/white female couple :
He has 2 alleles that code for black skin colour, she has two that code for white skin colour. All their offspring will have one that codes for black and another that codes for white skin colour. Their skin will have a mix of both colours. This is called co-dominance. This is why a black person has per definition NO allele coding for white skin colour.

(Sidenote : This really is oversimplified genetics, because many phenotypes are under control of more than one gene which can make the patterns which arise in the distribution of a certain characteristic in the offspring much more complicated than this. But let us assume that IF homosexuality has a genetic cause, that it is coded by only ONE gene.)

So again, why can't a black couple have a white baby? Because there simply IS not allele in any of the parents that codes for white skin colour.

Here comes in another mechanism : recessive vs. dominant.
Let us assume that the allele coding for black skin colour is dominant, the one coding for white skin colour is recessive. A couple in which the parents are both heterozygote for the characteristic skin colour, will have a black skin, since that allele is dominant. Now what possible skin colours could their offspring have (and this should look familiar if you know anything about genetics):
B is the dominant allele coding for black colour
b is the recessive allele coding for white colour

P: Bb x Bb

F1: BB 2Bb bb

Now, the BB and Bb offspring will all have a black skin, the bb offspring will have a white skin (surprise, surprise...).

So, this makes it perfectly possible for two heterosexual parent to have a homosexual child if its cause would be genetic, no?

Want more examples?
My mother has brown hair, my father has black hair, I have blond hair. My parents also both have brown eyes, I have blue eyes, in fact, three of us four kids have blue eyes, the fourth has brown eyes like our parents.

So you see, it is perfectly possible for offspring to have a certain characteristic that is absent in both the parents (actually, absent in their phenotype but present in their genotype), which makes your comparison with the black couple wrong, you just oversimplified it and made a big mistake as a result.

And I have also said that in order for the altruistic gene to survive, it MUST be recessive, any idea why?

b. I could live with it being just a misunderstandment. However, the whole statement and the island scenario is R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S. BECAUSE : we are NOT a population that consists of ONLY homosexual individuals. PLUS, I have pointed out to you that it is not because heterosexual individuals are the only ones that reproduce, that homosexual individuals cannot have a positive contribution to the birth rate. I'll say again : we, as a species, do not survive BECAUSE OF homosexual behaviour, but it is NOT MAKING US BECOME EXTINCT EITHER. It could help increase our CHANCES OF SURVIVAL without being just THE CAUSE of our survival. You really need to stop looking at this in black and white.

c. Yes you have, here's an exact copy of something you wrote in that thread :
 Quote:
Well first, there was nothing wrong with your comparison to being retarded. No one can deny that being homosexual (if you argue that it is natural) is a is a natural deformity/abnormal behavior; it is simply not how humans are 'supposed' to be. Being blind, retarded, homosexual, deaf, bad eyesight, etc. are all unfortunate abnormal human characteristics. I'm not saying that they are bad, so dont get me wrong; just not normal human characteristics.
[/b]

d. Look at b

 Quote:
Finally, you haven't pointed out any flaws in my base. You have twisted my words, and misunderstood my words, but every rationale I have used is a legitimate base for my opinion.
[/b]

Yes I have, you only have a hard time admitting it.

 Quote:
Also, I wish you would address the selective discrimination issue, but I can see why you wont: no one can. There is hypocritical, selective discrimination going on all the time, and no one wants to talk about it. Many people are jumping on the homosexuality band wagon, calling it 'tolerance'. You support homos or you are a bigot is the message I usually hear. And that is hypocritical to the Nth degree.
[/b]

Why do I have to address that issue? I haven't addressed it before, I never intended to do so either.
I was just READING that thread in order to learn[/b] something when I found I had to comment on those statements of yours. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 Quote:
I would appreciate it if you didn't personally cut me down, because when you do it temps me to drop to your level, and it also shows you have run out of intelligent talking points.
[/b]

I'm not trying to cut you down personally, it's a shame you think so, I'm trying to make you see that you are wrong at some crucial points in your thinking. It's also a shame that you think that in order to get to my level you need to "drop".
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
#723703 - 11/13/04 07:09 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Moonbat Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 265
Loc: Bristol, England
 Quote:

You said you gave me solid evidence, but then you said that it is the "best bet" considering what is known.

You cant have evidence, and then gamble on it.

Evidence is evidence, and you have none.

If I found evidence (such as a scientific reading) that the sun is hot, im not going to say that "it is the best bet that the sun is hot, given our knowledge". No, the sun IS hot. Thats what evidence is: proof...not a loose correlation.
You don't know what you're talking about.

Science does not produce proofs, science ONLY EVER produces the best bet. For every single scientific theory there is the possibility that evidence that contradicts the theory will arise.

With certain theories for example heliocentricity (planets go round the sun, germ-based theory of disease (viruses and bacteria cause desease), or evolution, the "bet" is considered such good odds that one can effectively consider it true. But they are still not proofs. From what i have read there is not so much evidence that the genetic theory of homosexuality is as strong as the above mentioned theories (though i could be mistaken) but it still constitutes the best bet.

I gave you direct quotes from abstracts of papers published in peer reviewd scientific journals, what more can you possibly want?

 Quote:

Please address the issue that has substance, about why you think its ok to selectively discriminate against other segments of the population who have lifestyles that 'dont' hurt anyone, yet you support the "illegal status" of their activities.
Your logic is flawed, even if one accepts your assertation that i discriminate against other segements of the population that does not alter the argument regarding homosexuality. Your current 'refutation' of my stance, could be applied to any argument regarding discrimination.

Ie:

You: we should descriminate against people who are black.

Me: No we shouldn't heres why....

You: Aha but you think nakedness in public should be illegal, ahah!.

Me: That doesn't address my argument at all.

Furthermore, i answered your queries, beastiality can be viewed as abusing animals, furthermore as someone else pointed out beastilaity carries a risk of transfering diseases to man, diseases that cross the species barrier are the most dangerous.

Do i support keeping nakedness in public illegal? As i said earlier i don't really care that much, are there lots of people who really want to be naked all the time, is their quality of life seriously reduced? I don't think so.

Furthermore there is a difference here, nudity in public is choice, homosexuality irrespective of whether its genetic or environmental roots is NOT choice.

 Quote:

You either have rules or chaos. Allow certain, normal, things...or allow everything
Bollocks, you can choose your rules. Not descriminating against someone who happens to find members of the same sex attractive is not going to lead to chaos.
_________________________
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Top
#723704 - 11/13/04 07:31 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
Science does not produce proofs, science ONLY EVER produces the best bet. For every single scientific theory there is the possibility that evidence that contradicts the theory will arise. With certain theories for example heliocentricity (planets go round the sun, germ-based theory of disease (viruses and bacteria cause disease), or EVOLUTION, the "bet" is considered such good odds that one can effectively consider it true. [/b]
Evolution at least as described by Darwin and his followers is VERY FAR from being proved, see Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And it was pretty funny to see the results of DNA taken from a supposed Cro-Magnan man which turned out to be from a dog, from a pig and from a modern human. Evolution is nothing more than a bad theory that allows philosophical materialism to be accepted in other areas of human life. There is likewise no solid evidence for Creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible has it. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
Bollocks, you can choose your rules. Not discriminating against someone who happens to find members of the same sex attractive is not going to lead to chaos. [/b]
It's a bit more than finding members of the same sex attractive.

But what does any of this have to do with terrorism of GWB?
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#723705 - 11/13/04 07:42 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
JBryan Offline
9000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/19/02
Posts: 9798
Loc: Oklahoma City
There is a sort of gravitational principle that causes all threads, no matter how orthogonal, to inevitably spiral into a discussion of homosexuality. It may take more pages for a topic like planting roses than for one began as a discussion of terrorism but it is the black hole, so to speak, about which everything else on this board revolves and, inevitably, enters .
_________________________
Better to light one small candle than to curse the %&#$@#! darkness.

Top
#723706 - 11/13/04 07:52 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
 Quote:
Originally posted by JBryan:
There is a sort of gravitational principle that causes all threads, no matter how orthogonal, to inevitably spiral into a discussion of homosexuality. It may take more pages for a topic like planting roses than for one began as a discussion of terrorism but IT IS THE BLACK HOLE, so to speak, about which everything else on this board revolves and, inevitably, enters . [/b]
LOL
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#723707 - 11/13/04 09:38 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Moonbat Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 265
Loc: Bristol, England
 Quote:

Evolution at least as described by Darwin and his followers is VERY FAR from being proved, see Shattering the Myths of Darwinism by Richard Milton. And it was pretty funny to see the results of DNA taken from a supposed Cro-Magnan man which turned out to be from a dog, from a pig and from a modern human. Evolution is nothing more than a bad theory that allows philosophical materialism to be accepted in other areas of human life. There is likewise no solid evidence for Creationism as a literal interpretation of the Bible has it. The truth is WE DON'T KNOW.
In science proof doesn't exist, atleast not beyond reasonable doubt, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt.

I can understand why you might disagree given the amount of nonsense spewed on the subject (especially and rather shamefully in the US, where one expects better). But you are mistaken, evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, is inevitable given the properties of cellular replication and genetics, and acts as the unifiying theory of biology, "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the context of evolution"

The book you site and those like it by Behe, Dembski et al. have all been completely demolished by the scientific community, most raise the same tired arguments that were shot down decades ago. They are motivated by those who view evolutionary theory as a threat to their religious ideology, rather than by objective analysis of the theory and the data available.

It is highly telling of the quality of the arguments presented that there is no record within peer reviewed scientific literature.

For reference here is a review of one of Milton's earlier books by an evolutionary biologist - Dawkins (granted if you know him and you're religious chances are you hate him, but his views are typical with regards to the validity of creation "science" vs. evolution).

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/Worl...the_myths.shtml

Infact just flicking through that review it's obvious that even with my A-level biology i could refute the arguments presented in that particular book, that should give you an idea of how informed many of these authors are.

A review of the book you mention can be found here:

http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml

Both of these links provide highly critical reviews i am sure that you will find just as many positive reviews (though invariably by people who do not understand evolutionary biology) that might be worth reading for a comparison.

If you wish to continue a discussion about evolution we should really make a new thread since this one already has already been derailed once. \:\) .
_________________________
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Top
#723708 - 11/13/04 11:18 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
This is supposedly a thread about terrorists and GWB. It has wavered into various topics that have nothing to do with either.

Like evolution.

I am on record as doubting both evolution and Creationism, the big bang theory, the so called third law of thermodynamics, that the world is running out of oil or is overpopulated, and many other things that are passed off as "beyond reasonable doubt." I am far more skeptical about a great many things.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
In science proof doesn't exist, atleast not beyond reasonable doubt, and evolution is beyond reasonable doubt. [/b]
NOT. Even Dr. Crick doubts there has been enough time for evolution to have produced the results we can all see around us. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Can you tell me anything you know about evolution for certain that can be proved by standard experiment? Any one thing --- that is absolutely true, that you would stake your life on? Anything about it that is absolutely beyond doubt? I frankly doubt it. For most scientists belief in evolution is accepted as a matter of faith not facts.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
I can understand why you might disagree given the amount of nonsense spewed on the subject (especially and rather shamefully in the US, where one expects better). But you are mistaken, evolution has mountains of evidence supporting it, is inevitable given the properties of cellular replication and genetics, and acts as the unifying theory of biology, "Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the context of evolution"[/b]
Unifying theory? Here are just a few problems:
1. extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution: that a new species or class of organisms can evolve from another species. Not proven, and not likely to be. No evidence.

2. the observed hierarchy found in nature is the reverse of that expected by evolutionary theory; simpler animals were found to reproduce in greater numbers and were more resistant to variations in the environment.

3. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed.

4. Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degrees and types of changes, not one species from another.

5. The natural selection hypothesis involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived. It does not answer where life came from nor does it explain diversity of species.

6. The commonality of apparent over design, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.

You can't successfully refute any of these criticisms. And I'll add one more, the most important one, geological evidence of mass extinction events combined with fossil records which indicate a profusion of not just single organisms but whole ecosystems within the blink of an eyelash in geological time following such events. Evolution were it possible would not have had enough time to proceed and in any case the fossil evidence is against it.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
The book you site and those like it by Behe, Dembski et al. have all been completely demolished by the scientific community, most raise the same tired arguments that were shot down decades ago. They are motivated by those who view evolutionary theory as a threat to their religious ideology, rather than by objective analysis of the theory and the data available. [/b]
It is in fact rather the reverse. Nothing the "scientific community" as you call it can completely demolish the questions which threaten to topple its own materialist ideology. Aristotle was a dolt and you are following in his errant footsteps.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
It is highly telling of the quality of the arguments presented that there is no record within peer reviewed scientific literature. [/b]
Indeed. Peer review is a form of inquisition or censorship which keeps disturbing ideas from being discussed in the open where they might be easily refuted. It would be beneficial to science (and the rest of us) to dispense with all of it.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
For reference here is a review of one of Milton's earlier books by an evolutionary biologist - Dawkins (granted if you know him and you're religious chances are you hate him, but his views are typical with regards to the validity of creation "science" vs. evolution). [/b]
I'm quite familiar with Dawkins. He is a self professed "turd slinger" who says he will do anything to preserve the status of the evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean he will or can succeed.

The question of how "informed" or "indoctrinated" many of these authors are should be more open to debate.

 Quote:
Originally posted by Moonbat:
A review of the book you mention can be found here:
http://www.2think.org/darwinism.shtml
[/b]
The author or authors of this very poor, jeering review, full of irrelevancies was never identified. I\m not impressed.

It is always and everywhere convenient to say to someone who dismisses a popular theory that just doesn't understand it. Moreover it is usually stated in a condescending way. Fine. I'll just say that \I understand enough to have made up my mind that the theory has no basis in fact and isn\t worth pursuing further. Same with Creationism, the big bang, etc.

Now how about getting more about terrorists and GWB.
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#723709 - 11/13/04 12:35 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Moonbat Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 265
Loc: Bristol, England
 Quote:

This is supposedly a thread about terrorists and GWB. It has wavered into various topics that have nothing to do with either.

Like evolution.
Fair enough.

 Quote:

I am on record as doubting both evolution and Creationism, the big bang theory, the so called third law of thermodynamics, that the world is running out of oil or is overpopulated, and many other things that are passed off as "beyond reasonable doubt." I am far more skeptical about a great many things
Ok... uh you should probably know that there is no 3rd law of thermodynamics.... And if you're talking about the 2nd law then you've chosen probably the most solid element in ALL of science.

 Quote:

NOT. Even Dr. Crick doubts there has been enough time for evolution to have produced the results we can all see around us.
Hmm.. Crick was an ardent defendant of evolution and also happened to be highly critical of religion i find it quite hard to believe that he doubted its viability. A much more likely explanation is you have read a fabrication or misquote of him. Do you have a reference?

 Quote:

Can you tell me anything you know about evolution for certain that can be proved by standard experiment?
That mutation can cause phenotypic change, and that beneficial traits spread through a population, that mutation can confer new functionality. That's a reasonable start.

 Quote:

Any one thing --- that is absolutely true, that you would stake your life on? Anything about it that is absolutely beyond doubt?
There is no absolute truth in science, there nothing that is 'absolutely' beyond doubt. There is only beyond 'reasonable' doubt. I would say that the theory of common descent achieved via a process of variation and selection is beyond reasonable doubt.

 Quote:

I frankly doubt it. For most scientists belief in evolution is accepted as a matter of faith not facts.
My experience with scientists runs contrary to that. (Edited to remove arrogance ) Most scientists seem to buy into evolution because it makes perfect sense and its backed by evidence, from the genotype from the fossil record, from lab based experiments.

 Quote:

Unifying theory?
Indeed.

 Quote:

Here are just a few problems:
1. extrapolating generalizations from limited artificial selection research to megaevolution: that a new species or class of organisms can evolve from another species. Not proven, and not likely to be. No evidence.
That's not a problem. Artificial selection is indeed evidence but its not the only evidence, more over it is a valid approach. It is reasonable to expect that if lots of successive small changes occur the end result is equivalent to a big change.

 Quote:

2. the observed hierarchy found in nature is the reverse of that expected by evolutionary theory; simpler animals were found to reproduce in greater numbers and were more resistant to variations in the environment.
See immediately by this statement you demonstrate that you don't understand what evolution actually says. I don't mean to sound aggressive or patronising. But it is so key because it's ALWAYS the case that those who doubt evolution don't understand what it actually says.

Evolutionary theory does NOT "expect" more complex organisms to be necessarily more reproductively successfull.

If there is selective pressure pushing an organism to become more complex then that's what will happen, but the reverse is true as well, if there is selective pressure favour simplicity then that will be favoured.

Whether having lots of complex functionality is worth the increased metabolic cost and lower reproductive rate is dependent on the ecological niche (the 'environment') the organism is in.

Damnit i'm not being clear enough. It's hard you see to explain evolutionary theory over a message board \:\) .

 Quote:

3. Individual survival after birth tends to be mostly the result of chance; in most cases natural selection eliminates only the sick and the deformed.
It is true that chance plays a large factor but it doesn't matter as long as there is very small bias in favour of certain traits then statistically speaking they will be more likely to spread than other traits. An organism with a usefull mutation will have a higher probability of reproducing than an organism without said mutation. That is all one needs for evolutionary theory.

Some usefull mutations will die out through chance but those that don't those that make it through several generations will spread through the population.

 Quote:

4. Environmental variations which cause evolution-temperature, the population of other animals, and the surrounding plant life, all of which have been fairly stable for eons-can result in only very limited degrees and types of changes, not one species from another.
1. Temperaturess vary widely across evolutionary timescales (ice ages) and across geometry (The saraha is hot, the poles are cold).

2. Environment in an evolutionary context also incorporates the surrounding organisms ie. the ecosystem. A bunch of animals from somewhere else turning up can thus create a completely new environment complete various selective pressures.

3. (And most importantly)

You raise another well known misunderstanding

Namely that to go from one species to another one needs a "big" change, you don't, there are no big changes, only small ones.

The point at which the ancestors of cats and dogs were considered seperate species was the point at which they became reproductively incompatible. If you have two groups within a species that are diverging (due too differing pressures), then at some point they become so dissimilar they can no longer interbreed. Bingo new species. (Though they will still look very similar). As time goes by the two species will become more and more distinct due to continuing environmental differences and genetic drift.

It is important to note though that the point of speciation is just another tiny phenotypic change.

 Quote:

5.
The natural selection hypothesis involves circular reasoning; an extant species survived because it was fit, and must be fit because it obviously has survived. It does not answer where life came from nor does it explain diversity of species.
Evolution does not seek to explain where life came from that is the field of abiogensis, evolution is equally compatible with a God snapping his fingers creating the first organism, or it emerging through complex chemical reactions on prebiotic Earth.

Evolution on the other hand DOES explain diversity, evolutionary principles show EXACTLY how biological diversity can arise. The mechanism of selection and variation can be shown to produce functionality through simulations (as a result computer programmers use "genetic algorithms" to solve problems, mirroring the process of evolution).

 Quote:

6. The commonality of apparent over design, or the existence of complex mechanisms that do not effect survival, but may add much to the quality of life, also creates a severe problem for the natural selection theory.
There are no severe problems for evolutionary theory, but its interesting that you mention over design, overdesign has easily advantages namely redundancy.

But what is interesting is that evolutionary theory is blind, it doesn't know where its going so whilst we would expect it to be able to produce fantastic complexity given its power, we would also expect examples where it looks stupid from a human point of view. And that's exactly what we find, there are numerous examples of "bad design" found in nature, from the position of the urethra causing prostate problems, to the wiring of nerves and the height of trees wasting resources.

 Quote:

You can't successfully refute any of these criticisms.
But you see, i can.

 Quote:

And I'll add one more, the most important one, geological evidence of mass extinction events combined with fossil records which indicate a profusion of not just single organisms but whole ecosystems within the blink of an eyelash in geological time following such events. Evolution were it possible would not have had enough time to proceed and in any case the fossil evidence is against it.
I can only assume you are talking about the Cambrian explosion. There is very very simple answer to the Cambrian explosion: If you have life merrily evolving away, but that life lacks an exoskeletal (ie. its soft). Then it can't leave any fossils, so what do you expect to see when exskeletons first evolve? Suddenly you will find massess of fossils and none before. Because for the first time the organisms can leave fossils!

To claim that the fossil record speaks out against evolution is folly of great measure. The reason why all paleontologists believe in evolution is because the field that they actual spend their lives studying shows it so clearly. They spend as much time arguing with creationists as biologists do!

 Quote:

It is in fact rather the reverse. Nothing the "scientific community" as you call it can completely demolish the questions which threaten to topple its own materialist ideology. Aristotle was a dolt and you are following in his errant footsteps
Ok...

 Quote:

Indeed. Peer review is a form of inquisition or censorship which keeps disturbing ideas from being discussed in the open where they might be easily refuted. It would be beneficial to science (and the rest of us) to dispense with all of it.
Peer review is a great asset it means we are able to seperate usefull science from nonsense. I will grant you that truly revolutionary ideas can be delayed by peer review because scientists tend to be quite conservative. But if they are sound ideas they always get through, relativity compeletely changed people's ideas, it wasn't rejected. Quantum theory didn't just our change our ideas it smashed them to bits.

 Quote:

I'm quite familiar with Dawkins. He is a self professed "turd slinger" who says he will do anything to preserve the status of the evolutionary theory. That doesn't mean he will or can succeed.
Ok.. so you don't like Dawkins \:\) . (though i'd disagree with your discription of him)

 Quote:

It is always and everywhere convenient to say to someone who dismisses a popular theory that just doesn't understand it
But with regards to evolution they NEVER EVER do. I know because i've read what they have to say on numerous occasions and i've debated with them on numerous occasions.

If you wish you could understand evolution, there are lots of popular books around that explain it, i would reccommend one of Goulds if you dislike Dawkins.

 Quote:

The author or authors of this very poor, jeering review, full of irrelevancies was never identified. I\m not impressed.
Disregarding style i thought the substance of that review is quite good. It does correctly refute some of the arguments (the same arguments one sees again and again in creationist literature) presented.

 Quote:

Fine. I'll just say that \I understand enough to have made up my mind that the theory has no basis in fact and isn\t worth pursuing further
But you see i know, i catagorically KNOW that you don't understand it, because i've just read what you think about it. \:\) I can help you understand it if you wish, or (and i would recommend this) you could get out a pop. sci. book from library.

I hope i haven't come off as too patronising.

Regards
Moonbat
_________________________
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Top
#723710 - 11/13/04 01:33 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
MusicMagellan Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 1157
Loc: NY
I'm taking a break from my Saturday chores again. I'm glad I popped in here.

Dave,

I personally very much appreciate your post. I am an R&D Engineer by profession and believe strongly in skeptical inquiry. Further, by belief, I am not a scientific reductionist.

Besides Quantum theory as cited by Moonbat, there's the celebrated Godel's Theorem which I imagine you're familiar with. It's hard to accept any scientific theory at face value after that Theorem surfaced.

In any event, a pure scientist judges a theory by utility alone, ready to replace it when something with more utility comes along.

Interestingly, there's a theory being promulgated now that proposes to replace the big bang theory with the notion of an infinitely cyclic process of expansions and compressions.

But I just want to alert you that you have a kindred spirit in Moonbat. My view is that you two are just brainstorming, devil's advocating each other along the way, as Moonbat and I did on another thread. I found that dialogue to easily be one of the most satisfying of those I've had in the Coffee Room to date because we were just brainstorming, neither one looking to win an argument per se.

Please don't either of you stop discussing such issues out of a personal misunderstanding.

Moonbat,

A few points regarding our other dialogue. My projection example was misleading. I agree that the input space is unknowable. I merely believe that our output spaces are (to use suggestive terminology from Linear Spaces) homomorphic to the input space as well as to each others' output spaces. That, to me, enables consistency between our observations of the input space: that is, the "real world."

I trust you had Linear Spaces at least back in College. If not, you'll find isomorphisms and homomorphisms defined early in any textbook on the subject. I find it very useful for discussing such philosophical questions, as long as it's not taken too literally (for example I am NOT implying that the transformations are linear).

Isomorphism is easy to explain. It means that for every object in the input space there is an equivalent object in the output space. Further there is an equivalent operation between objects in the output space for each of the operations in the input space. A simple example is real numbers together with the multiplication operation in the input space and logarithms together with addition operation in the output space.

Homomorphism, which is what's pertinent here, is not nearly as easy for me to explain in words without leading to misunderstandings.

Among other things, these notions, by implication, address the idea that out worlds, including our qualia, need only be equivalent in some broad sense for people to have meaningful (that is, non-chaotic) interaction within it.

To be continued another time. I don't want to divert this thread more than I have already.
_________________________
(watch this space)

Top
#723711 - 11/13/04 05:22 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
David Burton Offline
1000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/28/01
Posts: 1759
Loc: Coxsackie, New York
I believe this thread has now gone into outer space...
_________________________
David Burton's Blog
http://dpbmss041010.blogspot.com/

Top
#723712 - 11/14/04 05:16 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Moonbat Offline
Full Member

Registered: 10/21/04
Posts: 265
Loc: Bristol, England
MusicMagellan thanks for the input, i'll have to go read up about homomorphism now.
_________________________
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

Top
#723713 - 11/15/04 01:59 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
johnmoonlight Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 05/11/02
Posts: 2384
Loc: Lancaster, pa
Welcome back! We missed your insightful posts.
_________________________
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.

Top
#723714 - 11/15/04 02:41 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
sarah_blueparrot Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Bristol, England
I'm sorry, what the hell was that about? Why is he posting in here?
_________________________
Every time you play a funeral march, the devil grabs a soul.

Top
#723715 - 11/15/04 07:33 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
computerpro3 Offline
Full Member

Registered: 11/12/04
Posts: 367
Loc: Connecticut/Cincinnati
 Quote:
No matter how powerful a pen, it cannot legalize the murder of a human by its dispensation of ink.
incorrect

ever heard of partial-birth abortion that Kerry holds so dearley (in front of pro-abortion crowds anyway)? You know, where they take the baby halfway out of the mother, slit its head open while it's crying, suck its brains out with a high powered medical vaccum, crush the skull, and deposit the corpse of the infant in a sterilized garbage?

Apparantly not.

And besides, to the thread starter, if you're worried about the terrorists rejoicing and sitting there unhindered in their murderous efforts, why the hell don't you get YOUR country to do something about it? :rolleyes:

Top
#723716 - 11/16/04 09:15 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
Well, 89th key, it seems that you switched back to "ignore mode"... I hope I was able to make you see where you were wrong.
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
#723717 - 11/16/04 09:20 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Oh jeez nunatax, I came back here after the weekend and saw that this thread lost interest, and anyone reading it could see we were going in circles.

You dont disagree or agree with me, and you couldn't disprove any of my 'reasons' for my position...so it wasn't going anywhere, if you would like to continue, I'll be more than happy...

My opinion + your indecision = well, you figure it out.

After all, you chose to ignore the main reason I disagree with homosexual marriage, the selective discrimination...if you would like to continue, please address that issue. We all have our unproven theories about the origin of homosexuality, but since they are here, we might as well be pragmatic and discuss relevant issues.
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723718 - 11/16/04 09:31 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
#723719 - 11/16/04 10:06 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Look at everything you are saying! Here are the facts:

A) A pure white couple will NOT have a black kid.
B) A species cant survive from homosexual behavior
C) Nature articles about animals and altruistic "lifes" have no relevance to homosexuals, especially when they are all theories anyway!
D) If you have an island full of homos, you cant survive, refer to B.

What is so hard? Those are all true. You are dodging the issue, look at those 4 quick points i just made and tell me how any of those are wrong.

And why are you dodging the selective discrimination issue, because you dont 'care' about it? I thought you said thats not a good reason to stop debating...

Hmmm....
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723720 - 11/16/04 10:21 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
sarah_blueparrot Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Bristol, England
It's like a dog trying to catch its tail.. :rolleyes:
_________________________
Every time you play a funeral march, the devil grabs a soul.

Top
#723721 - 11/16/04 10:24 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Exactly my point sarah! \:\)

(even if that was pointed at me, haha)

We're going in circles and she wont address the issue with substance to it.

Lunch time! Is it dinner time in England?
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723722 - 11/16/04 10:26 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
sarah_blueparrot Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Bristol, England
Nearly.. I'm so tired though, I just want to sleep! Curry tonight \:\)
_________________________
Every time you play a funeral march, the devil grabs a soul.

Top
#723723 - 11/16/04 10:43 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
Gee, I wonder why we are going in circles... :rolleyes:

 Quote:
Originally posted by The 89th Key:
Look at everything you are saying! Here are the facts:

A) A pure white couple will NOT have a black kid.
B) A species cant survive from homosexual behavior
C) Nature articles about animals and altruistic "lifes" have no relevance to homosexuals, especially when they are all theories anyway!
D) If you have an island full of homos, you cant survive, refer to B.
[/b]
A. Exactly, and you used that to "prove" that a heterosexual couple cannot have a homosexual child if it would be genetic, and that therefor it is impossible that homosexuality has a genetic cause. And THAT is plain wrong, THAT is what I pointed out.

B. Did you even read what I posted in my previous message? Or was it just too complicated for you to understand?

C. The Nature article was not about animals, it was about PEOPLE (more proof that you didn't read it, or perhaps you only "skimmed" it? :rolleyes: )

And the altruistic "theory" is actually not really a theory anymore, but a widely accepted natural mechanism.

D. Please READ what I wrote about it.

Something extra :
Put one hundred altruistic individuals on an island, and theoretically speaking, they won't survive either. Fact is, that's not how it is in real life. In real life, a population has a limited number of altruistic individuals. Natural mechanisms prevent that a population gets too many altruistic individuals.

 Quote:
What is so hard? Those are all true. You are dodging the issue, look at those 4 quick points i just made and tell me how any of those are wrong.
[/b]

It is you mister, who is dodging the issue. You are dodging practically everything I'm saying here. Your "4 quick points" are true, but the conclusions you draw from those points are RIDICULOUS[/b], and that's what I'm pointing out, I think that is pretty clear if you read my posts.

 Quote:
And why are you dodging the selective discrimination issue, because you dont 'care' about it? I thought you said thats not a good reason to stop debating...
[/b]
Please clarify, I don't see a connection here to anything I have said in the past.
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
#723724 - 11/16/04 12:17 PM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
The 89th Key Offline
2000 Post Club Member

Registered: 10/20/04
Posts: 2400
Loc: Northern Virginia
Im not dodging anything you are saying, they are good arguments for your side, but at the same time, they dont refute any of those 4 points I made.

Those 4 points came up by the way through out many hundreds of posts on this topic, so some might seem random, and im not completely basing my theory on any of them...just in case you were wondering why they were so random.

But you admit that they are true, and I say that because I dont feel like going over and over, over them. That brings me to your last sentence...

...you were making fun of me earlier in that other post when I said I didn't feel like talking about it anymore because of the 'carosel' effect, and then when you said you dont want talk about the selective discrimination issue because you dont care...and I said that is unfair. I dont mind if you dont want to talk about it, but you were making fun of me earlier for not wanting to talk about the homo-argument in that other thread.

If those 4 points are done, and you dont want to talk about the selective discrimination issue, then I dont know what else we have to talk about.

But I do thank you for an intelligent conversation thusfar about the issue, most people (no matter what the stance) will not hold an intelligent conversation about such a controversial subject. \:\)
_________________________
-The 89th Key

www.thecollegecritic.com
--- Integrity | Loyalty | Simplicity ---[/b]

Top
#723725 - 11/17/04 05:29 AM Re: Terrorists rejoice! Bush is elected!
Nunatax Offline
500 Post Club Member

Registered: 07/13/03
Posts: 704
Loc: Belgium
*astonishingly deep sigh*

Iíll keep this post short...

You said the following :
 Quote:
the reasons gay people are even here are from heterosexual parents....you dont see a black couple having a white baby....do you?
Now, after all Iíve told you, do you still think that that is a flawless comparison?
A simple yes or no answer will do.
And please, act like a man this time and donít delete that first part of your statement again.
_________________________
Some can tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would think you might actually enjoy the trip, but that is far more polite than civil - JBryan

Top
Page 6 of 9 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >

What's Hot!!
HOW TO POST PICTURES on the Piano Forums
-------------------
Sharing is Caring!
About the Buttons
-------------------
Forums Rules & Help
-------------------
ADVERTISE
on Piano World

The world's most popular piano web site.
-------------------
PIANO BOOKS
Interesting books about the piano, pianists, piano history, biographies, memoirs and more!
(ad) HAILUN Pianos
Hailun Pianos - Click for More
ad (Casio)
Celviano by Casio Rebate
Ad (Seiler/Knabe)
Knabe Pianos
Sheet Music
(PW is an affiliate)
Sheet Music Plus Featured Sale
(125ad) Dampp Chaser
Dampp Chaser Piano Life Saver
(ad) Lindeblad Piano
Lindeblad Piano Restoration
New Topics - Multiple Forums
Music stores in Boston
by Jamie_from_Canada
10/01/14 09:39 AM
Need a stool of some kind
by GeorgeStorm
10/01/14 09:19 AM
Schoenberg's Kammersymphonie Op. 9 (for piano)
by jeffreyjones
10/01/14 08:48 AM
Old Schumann Upright
by UnrightTooner
10/01/14 08:24 AM
For sale: stand & monitors (used with MP11)...
by mrmacmusic
10/01/14 07:38 AM
Who's Online
149 registered (ajames, accordeur, alexbergauer, aesop, 41 invisible), 1585 Guests and 17 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
76385 Members
42 Forums
157919 Topics
2319230 Posts

Max Online: 15252 @ 03/21/10 11:39 PM
(ads by Google)

Visit our online store for gifts for music lovers

 
Help keep the forums up and running with a donation, any amount is appreciated!
Or by becoming a Subscribing member! Thank-you.
Donate   Subscribe
 
Our Piano Related Classified Ads
|
Dealers | Tuners | Lessons | Movers | Restorations | Pianos For Sale | Sell Your Piano |

Advertise on Piano World
| Subscribe | Piano World | PianoSupplies.com | Advertise on Piano World | Donate | Link to Us | Classifieds |
| |Contact | Privacy | Legal | About Us | Site Map | Free Newsletter | Press Room |


copyright 1997 - 2014 Piano World ® all rights reserved
No part of this site may be reproduced without prior written permission