Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Woolwich Terrorist attack


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 176-200 of 443 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 18:42:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 May 2013 18:47:40 BDT
Garscadden says:
I'm not sure i really get your point, to be honest (that's meant in a positive way).

I suspect the cockroach doesn't 'care' if the situation is 'artificial' or not. There is an environmental threat, it adapts to cope with it. The mechanism we are using to poison cockroaches is analogous to one that has also developed in nature (there are carnivorous plants that use glucose to attract prey).

Are you saying that as it is 'us' poisoning the cockroaches this isn't an evolutionary response? If it isn't - then what is it? (This is the bit i don't get).

We could go on about how we are products of nature, thus what we do to the cockroaches is entirely natural. But that doesn't really get us anywhere at all, so lets not :)

(And this response isn't the development of an extra receptor, it is the firing of an existing one. I don't think this difference actually affects the outcome, but it is worth noting - the development of an extra receptor would actually be a lot more complex, after all).

[EDIT - apologies for all the 'air' quotes]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 18:52:02 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 19:03:49 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 May 2013 19:04:29 BDT
Garscadden says:
Then the question becomes - is there _any_ experiment that would be acceptable to you as proof of evolutionary process?

(As it stands - the cockroach example doesn't seem to be natural selection in the sense of selecting pre-existing advantageous traits, it is actually a biological adaptation)

[EDIT - proof is the wrong word, it should be 'evidence', obviously]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 19:20:27 BDT
Spin says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 19:23:59 BDT
Twit, that's just a bit of baloney you found in a dictionary.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 20:13:36 BDT
I have no idea ....and I don't care....those who believe in evolution 'need' their little theory just as much as those who believe in creationism or Intelligent Design...you all need something to believe....fills the void.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 20:17:54 BDT
Garbage.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 20:20:14 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 20:25:17 BDT
Garscadden says:
Okay.

In your view can natural selection be considered capable for large scale changes as well as small - the gradual adaptation over massive periods of time such that, for example, a mammal such as a whale can separate into different incompatible types of whale (killer whales and dolphins for example)? (In this example we'd be considering a pre-adaptation type of whale that doesn't exist now as the original type of whale)

Posted on 24 May 2013 20:27:42 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 21:28:31 BDT
Well argued Gnomey. I'm awed by the power of your intellect.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 May 2013 22:34:46 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 May 2013 22:38:25 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Hi to you, M.E. Phelan
I said....>It is unrealistic to think that British citizens won't get involved at some point in the near future. <
You said:
Are you talking about the EDL and BNP? Whose members are nothing more than brain dead morons. With less than the IQ of one amoeba between them.
----------------
Ill answer that by loosely quoting my next post: it doesn't matter if they are EDL or BNP or just outraged citizens, it is about tribalism, fear and ignorance and it is not confined to the British right-wingers, I have witnessed first hand exactly the same response from Muslims in Herat, Tehran, Beirut and Fallujah. It is part of the human condition. As for the wonderful, magnanimous calls for calm from the families of victims, that too is not unique to Muslims but a completely natural shocked response to grief and loss. In exactly the same way that Drummer Rigsby's family and most other grieving families of terrorism are not asking for revenge on the perpetrators. In fact it is extremely rare for that to happen, wherever it happens. It is always those outraged but unrelated individuals that put up the battle cries.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 09:05:55 BDT
MC Zaptone says:
Spin says: MC; Beheading a man in full view of the public "does not come into it"? And you guys are questioning me over the concept what is "right"? Jesus wept...No wonder you gain enemies instead of friends...
That is not in the slightest bit analogous to what I actually said and you know it. Furthermore, you have no idea which side of the fence I sit on this particular subject.
Spin has spun. Your Modus Operandi is noted and I will bear this in mind when addressing your posts in the future.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:20:23 BDT
##### says:
I-G-N-O-R-E B-U-T-T-O-N

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:23:28 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 25 May 2013 10:58:29 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:25:04 BDT
##### says:
"evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications. In 2009, there were 235,740 scientific papers in PubMed that mentioned 'evolution'. Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:25:31 BDT
##### says:
"Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry. Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the US risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution. James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated states that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell which has substantial implications for combating cancer relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions. McCarter points out that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology also depended on the use of evolutionary theory. "

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:26:51 BDT
##### says:
"Repeatedly, creationists and intelligent design advocates have lost suits in US courts. Here is a list of important court cases in which creationists have lost: 1968 Epperson v. Arkansas, United States Supreme Court 1981 Segraves v. State of California, Supreme Court of California 1982 McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, U.S. Federal Court 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard, United States Supreme Court 1990 Webster v. New Lenox School District, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 1994 Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 1997 Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana 2000 Rodney LeVake v Independent School District 656, et al., District Court for the Third Judicial District of the State of Minnesota 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, US Federal Court 2006 Hurst v. Newman US District Court Eastern District of California.

despite the Creation Institute waving the petition of 600 biologists and geological scientists who don't believe in evolution or "Darwin Dissenters", this only represents 0.054% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:27:44 BDT
##### says:
Wisdom teeth in Humans. With all of the pain, time, and money that are put into dealing with wisdom teeth, humans have become just a little more than tired of these remnants from their large jawed ancestors. But regardless of how much they are despised, the wisdom teeth remain, and force their way into mouths regardless of the pain inflicted. There are two possible reasons why the wisdom teeth have become vestigial. The first is that the human jaw has become smaller than its ancestors -and the wisdom teeth are trying to grow into a jaw that is much too small. The second reason may have to do with dental hygiene. A few thousand years ago, it might be common for an 18 year old man to have lost several, probably most, of his teeth, and the incoming wisdom teeth would prove useful. Now that humans brush their teeth twice a day, it's possible to keep one's teeth for a lifetime. The drawback is that the wisdom teeth still want to come in, and when they do, they usually need to be extracted to prevent any serious pain.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:32:19 BDT
##### says:
A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists. The US National Academy of Sciences (a collection of the top 2,350 scientists in America) disregarded Intelligent design as "unscientific, pseudoscience or junk science." In October 2005 a coalition of more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory." The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution. In 2009 a Pew Research Centre poll found that 97% of scientists in all fields agree that evolution is fact. In 1966 German Nobel Prize winning biologist Hermann J. Muller issued a petition in support of evolution. The petition came with the rather awesome statement, There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 10:33:37 BDT
##### says:
One of the first attempts to provide evidence that there were substantial number of scientists who disagreed with evolution was a pamphlet produced by the Institute for Creation Research in 1971 entitled "21 Scientists Who Believe in Creation" This pamphlet has been reprinted several times. Sceptics have claimed that this list of 21 creation supporters is misleading since it includes five people with PhDs in engineering, three in education, two in theology, two in biochemistry, one in physics, one in chemistry, one in hydrology, one in entomology, one in psycholinguistics, one in food science technology, one in ecology, one in physiology and one in geophysics; and therefore only a small minority had qualifications related to evolutionary biology.

The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007. This prompted the National Centre for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce. The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1100) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 11:59:31 BDT
'All troops home NOW, and leave people to sort their own countries out'

Cave in to the demands of a terrorist, in short.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 15:57:10 BDT
Spin says:
Garscaden: It is not a case of "capability", nor a matter of measurement concerning "scale". Natural Selection will inevitably result in biodiversity. But, unlike those who focus on "Evolution", a process concerned with the individual and implying that it is solely the individual that "evolves" or changes , I see the process of "change" as involving the environment as well; the environment. It is not only the individual or species that is "active" in such change; the environment is involved as well. In fact, a change in a species can affect the environment so that the environment also changes. But the environment does not "evolve". And nor do species. For me, the term "Natural selection" indicates a synthesis between the environment (Natural) and the individual (Selection). The term "evolution" ignores such a necessary synthesis and implies that nature moves from the simple to the complex, which is not true. Nature follows he simplest route precisely because it is not "evolving" but simply being.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 17:02:17 BDT
Stu says:
hi spin hope you are feeling better today,a very good post if i may say so as OB has been talking please forgive me OB some nonsense at the moment,unusual for you OB do you not understand the british feelings when one of our soldiers is killed by the muslim fanatics and such like or any of our innocent people aswell i know what my first instinct is to do,but to post it would probably get my post deleted

In reply to an earlier post on 25 May 2013 17:41:47 BDT
Garscadden says:
Ta for that. But would you care to answer the question?

I think evolution involves environmental factors, and as species evolve they also effect changes in their environment. You think the same for natural selection. Thanks for confirming a point i didn't ask, and that seems pretty darn obvious.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  42
Total posts:  443
Initial post:  22 May 2013
Latest post:  8 Jun 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions