The elephant!

This may have been mentioned before, but it's worth repeating.

Due to ivory poachers killing elephants with tusks (negative environmental impact), elephants that grow full length tusks are becoming rare.

Increasingly, tusk size is diminishing, and there are now elephants being born that go on to never developing tusks at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322455/Why-elephants-are-not-so-long-in-the-tusk.html

Considering the long gestation period, this is an adaption that is happening incredibly fast. Survival of the fittest, or in this case, survival of those who do not possess a physical trait that makes them susceptible to being killed before they can pass on their genes.

I think this is great from a scientific standpoint, but there are anti-evolutionists who profess a belief in adaptation. They consider it 2 entirely different processes. Intellectually bankrupt? Sure!! But when you have faith, intellect is overrated.

archaicoctober Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
there are anti-evolutionists who
> profess a belief in adaptation. They consider it 2
> entirely different processes.

This is what is so funny to me. Most creationists when faced with the evidence will say that there is "microevolution", but never "macroevolution".

Evolution simply means variation by means of random mutation and natural selection. Over long periods of time, and I mean long periods of time, you will have new species. It doesn't happen overnight. It is not like one species gives birth to a new species. It is that small changes over long periods of time will give rise to new species after thousands of generations.

The argument that microevolution is valid, but macroevolution is invalid is like observing a penny fall from a 2 story building and concluding that if a penny is dropped from the empire state building, it will fall for 2 stories, then stop falling mid flight. Thus, "microgravity" is true, and "macrogravity" is not true.

Peter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> archaicoctober Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> The argument that microevolution is valid, but
> macroevolution is invalid is like observing a
> penny fall from a 2 story building and concluding
> that if a penny is dropped from the empire state
> building, it will fall for 2 stories, then stop
> falling mid flight. Thus, "microgravity" is true,
> and "macrogravity" is not true.

that is a really cool analogy, but how would you respond if someone said "well what if you drop a penny from 190 miles up?"

i'll give you the answer:
"The gravitational field ... extends to an infinite distance; gravity does not cease to act at any altitude. A spacecraft is said to be weightless when it is in orbit around the earth (or around any other celestial body) because the centrifugal effect (which acts away from the center) is then equal and opposite to the force of gravity. Under these conditions, objects in a spacecraft seem to float in space. In the same way, the moon does not fall toward the earth because of the centrifugal effect that balances the force of gravity."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070917151236AATaiSy

Can jesus make a burrito that is too hot for him to eat?

I think BJ is right about here.

Yes he could, oh wait no he couldn’t, but wait yes he could, oops no he couldn’t, well of course he could, aw but no he couldn’t, yet surly he could, nope he couldn’t, oh yes he could, man I don’t think he could, well why couldn’t he?

Come on, BJ this is really funny stuff when you think about it!

Oh and to say somethin bout the OP. Yes. Everything is in transition, all life on earth, some faster than others. Only Kirk Cammeron and freinds can't get their brains around this proven truth.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2010 11:12AM by AmIDarkNow?.

Snarky? Now you are just being nice...

Let me just say that atheists are to exmormon.org as mormons are to Utah. Ubiquitous!

I'm not an atheist. But it's good to see you STILL conflating belief in evolution with atheism. That is a completely erroneous viewpoint, and you will never experience any further intellectual growth until you come to grips with that one.

Okay, so evolutionists are not always atheists. So show me a mainstream religion that teaches evolution. Yes, of course, there are some sects that do, but on balance that is not the orthodox view.

In any event, to me an evolutionist (v. an atheist) is a distinction without a difference. Both believe that we were put here by an impersonal force. Both do not believe in God.

Have you lernt to spit yorh tabaccy fer enough so it dont stain your overhauls?

Do you live in south Mississippi or Alabama?

Not from the South, sorry. If you are what comes from there I'm glad I'm not there!

PS: ever here of a pseudonym? You can look ot up in the dictionary. It's in thar!

Unless you regard christian fundamentalism as "orthodox" (and only religious extremists do), then the bulk of christian denominations accept evolution. How about Catholicism? They accept evolution as a given. As do the Episcopalian/Anglican churches. There are many others.

Of course, you can (and probably will) take the cop-out view that those churches "don't represent mainstream christianity". Don't be that guy, BJ. Don't be THAT guy.

So name one then.

Or do you just ignore everything you don't wish to acknowledge?

You aren't stupid, Badger John. Stupid means you'd be incapable of learning. You are something worse; you are WILLFULLY IGNORANT. You CHOOSE not to be informed, even knowing in your heart-of-hearts that you are wrong.

If you actually believed what you claimed to believe, you'd realize that you are committing the ultimate blasphemy.

Oh, and byt the way, I'll name TWO: Presbyterians and Lutherans.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, so evolutionists are not always atheists.
> So show me a mainstream religion that teaches
> evolution. Yes, of course, there are some sects
> that do, but on balance that is not the orthodox
> view.
>
> In any event, to me an evolutionist (v. an
> atheist) is a distinction without a difference.
> Both believe that we were put here by an
> impersonal force. Both do not believe in God.

Absurd. Hinduism is quite comfortable with teaching evolution, it's not even a controversial concept. Is Hinduism, with over 800,000,000 adherents, not a "mainstream", or "orthodox", religion?

I accept evolution, and I am a theist. Your ideas are absurd.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2010 08:06PM by hello.

I do not consider Hinduism mainstream. Do you? what do you know of it?

Hinduism is the third largest religion.

If you studied world religions, you would know quite a bit about it.

Of course it is mainstream...in the world.

Your comment makes you sound ethnocentric and fairly uninformed about religions of the world. There's a big world out there beyond Christianity.

May Ganesha bring you luck.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2010 10:02PM by dagny.

Looks like you must have GOOGLED Hinduism. If you did, then you would know that it is polytheistic; thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps multiple millions of gods.

Again, insofar as the scope of this website is concerned, and based on my point of reference, I do not consider that mainstream.

By the same token, mormonism is not mainstream, given the plurality of gods in mormonism.

Ganesha happens to be my favorite among the Hindu deities.

(Not to be rude, but I've forgotten more than you will probably ever know about that Hinduism. I spent about 2 years studying world mythology. But I'm glad you've learned to use Google. :-))

OM Ganesh
OM Ganapataye namo namah

Oh, by YOUR frame of reference. I see...

BJ, perhaps you could include a thorough delineation of your personal frame of reference in your initial post in a thread, so the rest of us will have some idea up front of the special place you are coming from (rather than dropping in additional conditions in multiple posts scattered across a thread)?

I'm a Shaiva, and this sect of Hinduism is larger than all the Christians in the US together. I personally am into advaita vedanta (non duality), which is, in real ways, both monotheistic and pantheistic. As I said earlier, we are quite comfortable with evolution.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks like you must have GOOGLED Hinduism. If you
> did, then you would know that it is polytheistic;
> thousands, tens of thousands, perhaps multiple
> millions of gods.
>
> Again, insofar as the scope of this website is
> concerned, and based on my point of reference, I
> do not consider that mainstream.
>
> By the same token, mormonism is not mainstream,
> given the plurality of gods in mormonism.

If you're talking about mainstream Christianity, then yeah, Hinduism isn't mainstream, BECAUSE IT ISN'T CHRISTIAN. If you are talking about religions in general then Hinduism IS MAINSTREAM because there are 1 BILLION Hindus on this planet! They are the third largest religion in the world. Because you don't believe in their religious beliefs doesn't make them not mainstream.

Christianity only makes up 33% of this planet. And that doesn't even mean they all believe in creationism. Many Christians are very secular and creationism comes most strongly from the fundamentalist Christian denominations. Belief in Creationism is mostly an American thing. An overwhelming majority of Europeans believe in evolution over creationism.

A religion can only be "mainstream" if it is monotheistic?

Um, NO. A religion is considered mainstream, regardless of whether or not it is monotheistic or polytheistic, based on the number of followers compared to the population of the world.

Just because you don't agree with a religion does not mean that it is not mainstream.

Oh and, very FEW mainstream Christian religions are stupid enough to deny evolution as it is just as sound and true as the theory of gravity. Doing so simply ostracizes members from reality and pushes many members away.

I'd say that you are in a sad little minority my friend.

Just because you cannot imagine a God that is not a personal being, doesn't mean others can't or haven't imagined that. It's amusing that I am classified by you as an atheist, simply because you are so sorely lacking in imagination!

Also, you may have to reconsider your opinions of America's founding fathers. Most considered themselves Deists (the "god as clockmaker" school of thought), and belonged to churches only for the social and business connections they afforded. By your definition, Jefferson and Franklin were also atheists.

Of whom do you speak besides Jefferson and Franklin?

Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, Hugh Williamson, James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen, George Washington and Thomas Paine.

Looks like you have bought into rewritten history. Of the signers to the Declaration of Independence, virtually all were self-indentified Christians.

What website did you visit for your (bad) information?

Of course they self-identified as Christians. Just like every criminal I have prosecuted self-identified as innocent. Politicians do what every one does. They put up appearances to get the greatest social rewards.

Jefferson edited his own version of the bible because he didn't like the miraculous parts of jesus that he thought were ridiculous.

The founding fathers loved Thomas Paine's writing and most likely mirrored Paine's ideas of "deism."

You don't know half as much as you think you do.

Why can't an individual who believes in god also believe in evolution? What does mainstream religion have to do with it?
(by the way, I am a proud atheist, but only in the sense of a literal god)

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In any event, to me an evolutionist (v. an
> atheist) is a distinction without a difference.
> Both believe that we were put here by an
> impersonal force. Both do not believe in God.

again, the word "atheist" is used in 2 different ways by people generally:
1. the textbook definition: not believing in any deity or supernatural intelligence

2. the use by bible-based theists: someone who doesnt believe in the god of the bible, whatever you call him (yhwh, allah).

in the second case you could be "atheist", but still open for some sort of supernatural intelligence and still believe in evolution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2010 05:09AM by Nick Humphrey.

Badger John Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me just say that atheists are to exmormon.org
> as mormons are to Utah. Ubiquitous!

according to usa today:
http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gnoreligion/flash.htm

57% of utah is mormon, 43% are non-mormon.

And as they say here in Mississippi "I didn't come from no monkey! That thars EVILution and preacher dun tolt us it wuz from the DEVIL!"

What has 4 eyes and can't see? mIssIssIppI.

I believe this is considered an epigenetic change. It poaching stops in 3 or 4 generations the tusks would grow long again

the genes for long tusks are slowly disappearing. This is evolution selection for traits that allow survival.

What is usually selected for are single changes in the genome that determine how long certain "genes are expressed," i.e. allowed to operate.

See the National Geographic magazine articles on the occasion of Darwin's 200th Birthday for some interesting explanations on what happened...

Incidentally, tusk length probably has additional survival value besides sexual competition between males (which is rarely fatal; again, nature is parsimonious with her resources). Tusks have several functions, which is why they are found in both sexes in African elephants.

And there are still parts of Africa where elephant populations have overrun the habitat, forcing culling (including secretly shipping large bulls to hunting reserves to provide a thrill to wealthy Texans with more money that foresight or compassion).

ozpoof Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the genes for long tusks are slowly disappearing.
> This is evolution selection for traits that allow
> survival.

to me, this must imply that our perceptions/brain can change our own genetics. elephants see other elephants getting killed for their tusks and their brain says to their dna "ok, we're gonna drop that tusk sequence i think"

or how does this actually work?

Edited



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 11/24/2010 07:40AM by melissa3839.

Poor John Bobbit Jr.