Remarkably well-preserved 18,000-year-old puppy found frozen in Siberia

[Larniavc]

If you had no reason for the accusation, just admit it and move on, not that big a deal.

The reason is that you accuse people of dishonesty when you read something that conflicts with what you believe.

Can I get an ‘agree’ like from the cheap seats?

 

[Speedwell]

Why?

I don't remember and it's really not important enough for me to go back through all of your posts and figure out why I had that impression. The matter has been resolved in any case. There is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution but there is disagreement (controversy) between the scientific community and creationists about it. We are all in agreement about that.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I don't remember and it's really not important enough for me to go back through all of your posts and figure out why I had that impression. The matter has been resolved in any case. There is no controversy within the scientific community about evolution but there is disagreement (controversy) between the scientific community and creationists about it. We are all in agreement about that.

Of course you don't remember, and there is a reason for that.

And anyone excluding creationist scientists from the scientific community is simply not being truthful.

The "matter" you mention was not the matter, and what's more we already determined that. That's two twists already, and I didn't even finish reading your reply.

EDIT: And yes, the actual point was resolved until you had to take one last swipe at me.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Domestication has led to changes in gene frequencies. It is artificial selection rather than natural selection, but the result is evolution.

Selective breeding is not the same as evolution. Evolution happens randomly not through intelligent design.

 

[Kenny'sID]

The reason is that you accuse people of dishonesty when you read something that conflicts with what you believe.

Can I get an ‘agree’ like from the cheap seats?

Yet you cannot show me where that happened.

Can we all go home now?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course you don't remember, and there is a reason for that.

And anyone excluding creationist scientists from the scientific community is simply not being truthful.

The "matter" you mention was not the matter, and what's more we already determined that. That's two twists already, and I didn't even finish reading your reply.

EDIT: And yes, the actual point was resolved until you had to take one last swipe at me.

What "swipe?" Do you come here for any other reason than to pretend to be insulted?

 

[Speedwell]

And anyone excluding creationist scientists from the scientific community is simply not being truthful.

Creation "scientists" generally are required to promise whoever they work for that nothing they discover or conclude will contradict a literal reading of Genesis. That is a de facto repudiation of the scientific method which precludes them from being considered part of the scientific community.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Selective breeding is not the same as evolution. Evolution happens randomly not through intelligent design.

It's descent with modification due to selection pressures in the environment. Human beings are part of the environment. Just like ants are part of the environment for aphids.

While certainly we tend to draw a distinction between natural selection and artificial selection, there's really no difference here. This is evolution.

 

[Kenny'sID]

What "swipe?" Do you come here for any other reason than to pretend to be insulted?

The swipe in the quote following, something that simply didn't happen, and verifiable by the fact I asked you to show me why you thought i wasn't clear and you avoided it.

Try to be more clear next time. It reduces controversy.

i don't see such things as an insult, only an untrue/unverifiable comment thrown in there that needed straightening out.

Geez people, you misunderstood something I was clear on, is it really worth all this to try to make such a petty fact go away?

 

[Speedwell]

The swipe in the quote following, something that simply didn't happen, and verifiable by the fact I asked you to show me why you thought i wasn't clear and you avoided it.



i don't see such things as an insult, only an untrue/unverifiable comment thrown in there that needed straightening out.

Geez people, you misunderstood something I was clear on, is it really worth all this to try to make such a petty fact go away?

Then why did you rate the comment as funny? Obviously you got the joke.

 

[pitabread]

And anyone excluding creationist scientists from the scientific community is simply not being truthful.

The number of relevant credentialed scientists with creationist beliefs represents a minuscule fraction of the total population of said scientists. There aren't enough of them for such dissent from mainstream science as being controversial in that respect.

You can find fringe beliefs for almost anything among scientists, but it doesn't mean those areas of science in question are therefore controversial.

And then you have creationist biologist Todd Wood who even seems to agree with this notion when he says stuff like this, "Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory." (his emphasis). - The truth about evolution

The fact remains, evolution is not a controversial subject in the sciences and certainly not within biology.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Selective breeding is not the same as evolution. Evolution happens randomly not through intelligent design.

It's obviously not evolution by natural selection, because the selection is artificial, but it changes the heritable characteristics of the relevant populations via the same mechanism, so it falls within the standard definition - it's a form of evolution - evolution by artificial selection.

 

[Larniavc]

Yet you cannot show me where that happened.

Can we all go home now?

Here you say:

”Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.“

Bolding added by me (you can go home now).

Does the the dance of victory.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Here you say:

”Sure it's controversial, it's as controversial as evolution itself that a higher form of life like man came for a single celled animal in that way, yet you have the nerve to say it's not the slightest bit controversial??

It's reasons like that, among others, I can't trust some of you enough to carry on a debate? See, there has to be at least something that resembles honesty here in order for one party to take the other seriousely.“

Bolding added by me (you can go home now).

Does the the dance of victory.

The sole reason for the accusation was not because I disagreed, it was because there was dishonesty. See the correlation now? Where/why the petty and without forethought accusation is beyond me, not to mention dead wrong. ...

Now turn the music off and hang up that Tutu.

 

[Larniavc]

The sole reason for the accusation was not because I disagreed, it was because there was dishonesty. See the correlation now? Where/why the petty and without forethought accusation is beyond me, not to mention dead wrong. ...

Now turn the music off and hang up that Tutu.

The sole reason for the accusation was not because I disagreed, it was because there was dishonesty. See the correlation now? Where/why the petty and without forethought accusation is beyond me, not to mention dead wrong. ...

Now turn the music off and hang up that Tutu.

Lol.

Take the L

 

[grasping the after wind]

It's descent with modification due to selection pressures in the environment. Human beings are part of the environment. Just like ants are part of the environment for aphids.

While certainly we tend to draw a distinction between natural selection and artificial selection, there's really no difference here. This is evolution.

No it isn't. Evolution is random. Selective breeding is intentional and purposeful not random. They are nothing alike. Humans being part of the environment is irrelevant to the point. Organisms do not evolve to fit the environment. Organisms randomly evolve and sometimes those evolved traits are beneficial for survival in the environment. Sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are harmful to survival.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is random. Selective breeding is intentional and purposeful not random. They are nothing alike.

Of course they are alike. The basic principles of reproduction and mutation, are the same regardless of whether the selective process is natural or artificial.

The only difference is the selective pressure, and that traits that might be selected for artificially (by humans) won't necessarily be selected for naturally (e.g. in absence of human selection).

Furthermore, selection itself is not strictly random in the face of selective pressure. For example, if given a pathogen that is introduced to a population and a subset of that population has an allele that protects against that pathogen, you can predict a shift in allele frequencies whereby that allele will increase in frequency.

This is exactly the sort of thing observed in nature.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Of course they are alike. The basic principles of reproduction and mutation, are the same regardless of whether the selective process is natural or artificial.

The only difference is the selective pressure, and that traits that might be selected for artificially (by humans) won't necessarily be selected for naturally (e.g. in absence of human selection).

Random is the opposite of intentional. So they are as alike as opposites can be.

 

[pitabread]

Random is the opposite of intentional. So they are as alike as opposites can be.

I updated by post because even natural selection is not strictly random. Natural selective pressures can change allele frequencies in populations in predictive fashion.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I updated by post because even natural selection is not strictly random. Natural selective pressures can change allele frequencies in populations in predictive fashion.

Evolution is random. If you don't believe that ask Darwin.