lucaspa

So where is your first use of wings in diving as an aerodynamic feature? As I stated, in diving having forelimbs outstretched is detrimental, not advantageous. Not in terms of wings or flight do you mention exaptation. Where is the exaptation for that? You only talk adaptation there. 1. You didn't read carefully. In the first: "WAIR has been documented in the juveniles and adults of four species of ground birds, and involves the simultaneous use of flapping wings and running legs to ascend steep inclines (Dial, 2003). WAIR permits extant ground birds, and may have permitted proto-birds, to use their hindlimbs more effectively in retreat to elevated refuges (cliffs, boulders, trees, etc.)." Dial limits his discussion to living ground birds. It is obvious that carnivorous theropod dinos would have used the ability to chase prey. 2. Dial is clear it is not a "defensive failure", but at least a "defensive success". Avoiding predators and reaching refuge so that you are not eaten contributes to reproductive success. Of course, we have the problem of your mischaracterization of natural selection into false categories. There are no categories such as you have tried to divide natural selection into "offensive" and "defensive". For natural selection, anything that gives an edge in the competition for survival and reproduction is a "success". A gazelle able to outrun and outturn a lion has a beneficial trait, whether you consider it "defensive" or not. Surely you can explain. Telling me to "re-read" is not furthering the discussion. It is a duck. Humans have no tails but are able to control rotation during headfirst dives. This falsifies the necessity of a tail for a headfirst diver. But it still takes more energy than simply wading out into a stream. Remember, most of the attempts are going to end in failure. A wader doesn't have to climb back out when it misses; it just stands there. Therefore diving is going to be selected against in a population living along a bank. Only in a situation where the organism has to go looking for fish in the ocean and then dive on them is diving going to be used. But you need flight to go looking! 1. No, I didn't. Cormorants dive for fish: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t115v5107mk16065/ http://www.mnh.si.edu/exhibits/natures_best_2006/gallery/cormorantdivingforherring.html (notice the folded wings in the picture) http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/137735/cormorant#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked%3E%2Fbps%2Ftopic%2F137735%2Fcormorant&title=cormorant%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia 2. Even if I made the mistake between cormorants and terns (which I didn't), it doesn't change the validity of the argument. You didn't address the argument. As I said, cormorants fly around looking for fish. The success of their dives (in terms of catching fish) depends on the density of fish. In order for your diving hypothesis to be correct, you would have to have a very constant (over thousands of generations) high density population of fish in a stream. And, of course, you don't get any aerodynamic benefit from having wings to dive from a low bank, do you? If you then move to higher banks and then cliffs, then the ecological requirement for a very dense fish population in a stream adjacent to cliffs (with water deep enough to allow diving) becomes even less likely. 3. BTW, did you notice that cormorants do NOT have tails? So tails are not necessary for controlling a dive. By your theory, the first birds would have been tail less. However, the fossil record shows that to be in error. By natural selection. Having a genetically controlled behavior contributes to survival and differential reproduction. For instance, humans have an instinct for suckling. The babies born without the alleles for that behavior did not nurse and starved to death. OTOH, babies with the alleles nursed and survived: to have babies that, due to inheritance, also had the alleles. Why do "traits that work produce more offspring"? You have to show a mechanism by which a trait is going to result in more offspring. IOW, why and how the "trait" works. In your case, the how must be: the diver gets more food than those who don't. However, in the case of a meandering stream with banks, a wader will get more food than a diver and at less energy expenditure. No, it's not. And we are not talking about "extending a hunting range". We are in the same range but talking about which is more efficient at getting food: diving or wading. That won't work. Remember, according to your theory, the deep water must be close to the bank. Look at rivers. That doesn't happen all that often. It is still more efficient to walk to where the water is shallow enough to wade and then simply go stand and lunge at fish than dive and climb out again. As a scientist, you can't do this. Because your job is to show the theory to be wrong. Science works by showing theories to be wrong. If you "love" your theory, you won't be willing to do your job as a scientist. 1. C Seife, Radical gravity theory hits large scale snag. Science 292: 1629, June1, 2001 MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) alters some properties of gravity to eliminate the need for dark matter, but doesn't fit with General Relativity. Recent observations show it is at odds with observationsof galaxy clusters. "Missing" peak in CMB thought support for MOND, but peak found. The data "disagree very strongly with MOND's prediction," says Aguirre. "MOND is not a viable alternative to dark matter in clusters." "As its inventor, I would like it [MOND] to be a revolution, but I look at it coolly," says Milgrom. "I will be very sad, but not shocked if turns out to be dark matter." Milgrom is a damn good scientist. Several pieces of data I have mentioned (and more I will say) are contradictory to its accuracy. What "forelimb fins? There are no "fins" in the fossil record in the evolution of birds. The forelimbs of bird ancestors are grasping limbs with claws at the ends, not fins. And the bones and soft tissue show there wasn't a change in form of the forelimb. The forelimbs of Archeopteryx are identical to those of small dinosaurs -- so identical that fossils without feather impressions were misidentified as celiosaurs. They don't dive, they float! You said it yourself, "lots of birds land". Your theory requires wings to be used in diving. Name a diving bird that dives with its wings unfolded to aid diving. That's not the point. The point is that what was a controversy in the past may not be a controversy now. Your sources are all older than Dial's papers -- which has settled the controversy. Therefore, when those sources were written, there was a controversy. Now, new data has resolved the controversy. I know. I've been quoting from it, remember? Try to keep up. The theory doesn't work for several reasons. I'm sorry. I know you "love" it, but that doesn't change the data that falsifies it. As you admitted, you did the theory without even looking at the paleontological data. Consider something else: catching fish with the mouth requires adaptations to the jaws and teeth. Early birds and the theropod dinos that are their ancestors don't have those adaptations. And this is even more surely known because pteranodons and pterosaurs had those adaptations. In fact, at the time birds were evolving, pterosaurs and pteranodons occupied the very niche you are proposing for protobirds: diving after fish! With many genera and families already adapted to that ecological niche, there is no way an early diving protobird could have competed. Another falsification of your theory. Again, sorry. You put a lot of work into it. Too bad it doesn't work. Because the ancestors of birds were carnivorous dinosaurs. Therefore they are the ones doing the eating. Although, as small carnivorous dinos, they could have been prey to larger carnivorous dinos, thus Dial's discussion of using running up an inclined plane to reach a "refuge" and avoid being eaten. Because wind is not constant enough nor from the right direction to provide a selection factor. Remember, for the wind to provide the airspeed, it must be blowing toward the animal. What if the prey or refuge is downwind? IOW, nearly all the time the animal is going to need to move in a direction where the wind won't be able to provide the required airspeed. In order for the trait to be reliable enough for natural selection, it must work in all conditions. In birds, however, feathers for flight don't develop until the bird is an adult. This is the strength of Dial's work: the feathers have an evolutionary advantage even if they don't get the animal off the ground. So they protect a young bird (and even an adult protobird) from being eaten even when they are not good enough for flight.

1. That last sentence shows why the situation you propose is not stable: the selfish individuals do better -- in terms of natural selection and reproduction -- than the altruistic individuals. 2. Of course, you don't demonstrate how a group with altruistic individuals will do better in a reproductive sense. What genes are being passed on if the altruistic individuals sacrifice themselves for the group? Some of those altruistic individuals will die before they have kids and more will die before they can have the maximum number of kids. Therefore the altruistic alleles will be removed from the population. The selfish individuals will, of course, not sacrifice themselves and they will be the ones with comparative reproductive success. Work in evolutionary psychology indicates that humans have a genetic module for detecting cheating. This is a way of rejecting the greedy individuals and would eliminate them: greedy individuals would be rejected as potential mates. However, this doesn't increase altruism, but just fairness and cooperation. The selection is of individuals. That is very clear. Genes are selected for. Mayr puts it this way: "Much confusion about this problem can be avoided by considering two separate aspects of the question: 'selection of' and 'selection for'. Let us illustrate this with the sickle cell gene. For the question 'selection of' the answer is the individual who either does or does not carry the sickle cell gene. In a malalrial region the answer to 'selection for' is the sickle cell gene, owing to the protection it gives to its heterogenous carriers. When one makes the distinction between the two questions, it becomes quite clear that a gene as such can never be the object of selection. It is only part of a geneotype, whereas the phenotypes of the individual as a whole (based upon the genotype) is the actual object of selection (Mayr 1997). ... "The reductionist [Dawkins'] thesis that the gene is the object of selection is also invalid for another reason. It is based on the assumption that each gene acts independently of all other genes when making its contribution of genes to the properties of the phenotype. If this were true, the total contribution of genes to the making of the phenotype would be accounted for by the addition of the action of all individual genes. This assumption is referred to as teh 'additive gene action' assumption. Indeed, some genes, perhaps even many genes, seem to act in such a direct and independent manner. If you are a male with the hemophiliac gene, you will be a bleeder. Many other genes, however, interact with each other. Gene B may enhance or reduce the effects of gene A. Or else the effects of gene A will not occur unless gene B is also present. Such interactions among genes are called epistatic interactions." Ernst Mayr What Evolution Is, pgs 126-127 In evolution, "altruism" has a definite meaning. This is another example of not looking at the specific meaning of a word within a discipline, but trying to apply a generalized definition. In evolutionary biology, altruism is "conferral of a benefit on other individuals at an apparent cost to the benefactor" Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, pg 765 It is very apparent that "not stealing" is not altruism. No, they don't. Instead, successful colonies "reproduce" as queens and workers leave to found new colonies. That makes the colony the individual. And in evolution, the individual does NOT evolve. Populations evolve. So it would be the population of colonies derived as "offspring" of the colony that would evolve. Humans are different. Our behavior is not strictly programmed by our genes as insect behavior is. In fact, our behavior is only very loosely tied to our genes. That's why it is invalid to try to extrapolate insect altruism to human altruism. Because humans can manipulate ideas, we can extend the concept of our "genome" to people who are completely unrelated to us. Thus we can engage in behavior that benefits people we are not related to at apparent cost to ourselves.

And I submit that this is as inappropriate in a science forum as those promoting science as proving God exists. Science is agnostic. By its legitimate methods, science cannot comment on the issue of God's superintendence over nature. As scientists, we neither affirm nor deny it; we can't comment. (from a quote by Gould). To quote Eugenie Scott, Ph.D., head of the National Center for Science Education: "for a nonreligious professor to interject his own philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995, pg 519. That does not follow. Most Christians are not creationists. Some Christians are creationist, just as some scientists are atheist. But being Christian does not mean you are a creationist anymore than being a scientist means you are atheist. I'm afraid it doesn't. Natural selection removes an argument for God as a valid argument: the Argument from Design. Natural selection means that God does not have to directly manufacture each species, but it certainly does not mean that God is not necessary. I'm afraid you misunderstood the science. I'm afraid Carl lied. Most of Christianity reacted the way Carl described. Carl Sagan is an example of someone who mistakenly tried to make his faith into a conclusion of science. Dawkins is another. In that regard, they warp science as badly, or worse, than any creationist. Ah, one of the myths of militant atheism: people only believe because their parents said so! You have a poor opinion of scientists, don't you? You trust them to imagine the "world outside the box" to make their discoveries, but then don't trust them to keep thinking "outside the box" when it comes to deity. At least 40% of scientists are theists by a very conservative definition. Provine tried to rationalize this contrary bit of data to the myth by saying that scientists "checked their brains at the door" when it comes to religion. I submit that militant atheists are the ones that check their brains at the door. Djamarrco's position is exactly that of Charles Darwin in Origin of Species. Darwin had God directly manufacturing life by had species originate by the secondary cause of evolution by natural selection: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450. Now, "secondary cause" is a religious concept that has been forgotten by modern day creationists. You apparently were never taught it. Many theists look for "gaps" to insert God into. Djamarrco did so. However, both science and theology has advanced since Darwin's day. There are secondary causes -- chemistry -- to get life from non-life. And theologians realize that god-of-the-gaps theology is non-Christian: "There are profound biblical objections to such a "God-of-the-gaps," as this understanding of God's relation to the universe has come to be called. By "gap" it is meant that no member or members of the universe can be found to account for regularly occurring phenomana in nature. God is inserted in the gaps which could be occupied by members of the universe. This is theologically improper because God, as creator of the universe, is not a member of the universe. God can never properly be used in scientific accounts, which are formulated in terms of the relations between members of the universe, because that would reduce God to the status of a creature. According to a Christian conception of God as creator of a universe that is rational through and through, there are no missing relations between the members of nature. If, in our study of nature, we run into what seems to be an instance of a connection missing between members of nature, the Christian doctrine of creation implies that we should keep looking for one. ...But, according to the doctrine of creation, we are never to postulate God as the *immediate* cause of any *regular* [emphases in original] occurrence in nature. In time, a "God of the gaps" was seen to be bad science as well as bad theology. Science now is programamatically committed to a view of nature in which there are no gaps between members of the universe." Diogenes Allen, Christian Belief in a Postmodern World, pp. 45-46. Four, I don't care that you went from theist to atheist. However, you should care that you did so for invalid reasons. You want to look for the valid reasons for believing deity does not exist. Trying to cite science as a valid reasons means that it is necessary to defend science from that abuse. Science is not a way to convert people to your faith.

No. Scientific research is about finding out how the physical universe works. Whether or not it is used for the "betterment" of humanity (and how you decide what is "better") is a separate issue. None of the posters have given a mathematical formula or other means of deciding the value of biodiversity. You have all been making arguments (some valid and some not) that biodiversity is valuable. Carol, you have hit upon perhaps the biggest problem in discussing conservationism: trying to give a monetary value to biodiversity. This is not a crass exercise. Monetary value becomes a means of comparing between two very different alternatives; we can use it as a "common denominator" to compare the benefits and costs of different actions: build a port or a shopping mall along a waterfront, for instance. Yes, you can argue that you can't put a monetary value on some things. For instance, you could give the monetary value in increased tax revenues of converting the Old North Church in Boston to a high rise office/shopping building. However, you can't put a monetary value on the history lost by doing so. However, that's a major problem in conservationism. Conservationists (and I am one) have basically emotional and non-quantifiable arguments for preserving species, but have no objective numbers to counter the monetary figures of jobs lost, revenues lost, tax income lost, etc. of conservation issues. Yes, we get medicines from plants and animals (to use one of the valid arguments for preserving species presented), but what is the monetary value of the medicines produced by, say, the Amazon rain forest, compared to the monetary value of turning the forest into ranches and farmland? What is the cost of the lost oxygen production and reduction of carbon dioxide compared to the cost of global warming by that carbon dioxide? The monetary value of the farmland and ranches can be calculated, but not the other side of the equation. Oh yes! After all, the Endangered Species Act preserves biodiversity. Those wanting to get rid of it would reduce biodiversity as those endangered species went extinct. Remember the snail darter? A very small fish that held up some very expensive dams in the Tennessee Valley Authority. You have the monetary value of the electricity and water for agriculture on one side (the pro) vs the con of losing the snail darter and decreasing biodiversity. How much was preserving the snail darter (as a species) worth? Many, many people argued it wasn't worth the hundreds of millions of dollars lost as a result of not building the dams. Much of the argument about drilling for oil on the North Slope in Alaska has to do with biodiversity. By disrupting the ecology of the area, it is feared that many species would go extinct -- reducing biodiversity. Is the continued existence of those species worth the extra money we will pay at the pump for gasoline or the extra money we will pay for electricity?

1. When I said "see Sayonara" I meant that he gave a good answer to your previous post. 2. Did you stop and notice that the website I gave for the definition of "abstract" was exactly the website you gave? So, yes, "there"! 3. You can't use wikipedia as a source in a serious discussion. It is not referreed and people can put into it whatever they like. There is no way to ensure that what is in Wiki is accurate. That's why I used Merriam-Webster. But in doing so you missed the context of my comments. The thread had already been taken out of science by the poster who said "I believe all animals have souls ..." What you specifically objected to was what you considered denigration of the intelligence of dogs. If that is the case, then you have destroyed the only basis for your claim that dogs dream! Sam, you need to remember what the claims were. It was your claim that dogs dream: "GEEEZE, dogs even have dreams ya know." Now you have just destroyed 1) your own claim and with it 2) a major basis for your claim of canine intelligence! Thank you for backing my position and destroying yours, but in the future you might want to keep track of what you are doing a bit better. So how do you know those are "dreams"? Yes, you "call" it, but this is a science forum. What data do you have to back your opinion? I at least was relating the correlation between REM sleep and dreams in humans --which data you deny! So on one hand you deny the considerable scientific data correlating REM sleep and dreaming but on the other hand you "call it" without any data whatsoever! Science isn't about stating your opinon as "fact", but about reaching logical conclusions from the data and recognizing when the data doesn't allow conclusions. However, that still doesn't get us anywhere nearer answering the question whether dogs are capable of abstract thought. How do any of your stories demonstrate abstract thought in the animals you mention? None of them even particularly represent "play". They could equally well test the reactions of other animals in their environment. The deer are checking whether the cows are dangerous and will chase them. Not abstract, but concrete thought. None of the stories had anything to do with dogs.

I don't think most of these are instincts; they are instead learned behaviors. The act of suckling appears to be instinctual: place a nipple in a newborn's mouth and it will suckle. However, to do so when hungry is a learned behavior. Showing fear when parents do is also a learned behavior. This is done during development as babies copy adult behavior. "out-of-body" experiences in near death experiences seem to be something different. Pim van Lommel, Ruud van Wees, Vincent Meyers, Ingrid Elfferich Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest: a prospective study in the Netherlands THE LANCET • Vol 358 • December 15, 2001, 2039 Migration in birds seems to be an "instinct" and hardwired into the genes. http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/16.Evol.Behavior.HTML http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1641%2FB570211&ct=1

There isn't a precise demarcation. This is because evolution happens. Remember, evolution happens to populations and that traits are plotted as bell-shaped curves. So, as the population gradually changes from generation to generation the curves of each generation shift either right or left, but there is a lot of overlap with the previous generation. After hundreds or thousands of generations, finally the bell-shaped curve of generation 1,000 doesn't overlap at all with the curve of generation 1. However, just where in that progression do we draw the line? Can we say "at generation 499 we had Species A but at generation 500 we have species B"? NO! We can't. Ring species are undergoing speciation; they are speciation in progress. If you break the ring by having any of the intermediate propulations go extinct, then yes, we have 2 species. Mayr says that there are already breaks in many ring species. We simply haven't looked closely enough to find them. Therefore, since there are breaks, we have 2 species in those cases.

The incorporation of organelles into single-celled organisms (mitochondria, chloroplasts) are examples of mutualism. You have a bacteria that was once a parasite in another organism and then became a mutualistic organism. White blood cells are a form of differentiated cell within a multicellular organism. You can trace the lineage of a white blood cell back thru the hematopoietic stem cell to the mesodermal stem cell to the embryonic stem cell to the fertilized ovum. The key difference is that mutualistic organisms have different DNA and means for replicating that DNA from each other while multicellularity has the same genome. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts have their own genome (much reduced since many of the genes got moved to the nuclear DNA) and ribosomes while white blood cells have the same genome and DNA and ribosomes as any other cell in the body.

I think both have problems. Dawkins is making his usual confusion between "unit of selection" and "unit selected for" when he says "What matters is gene selection." What matters is the individual. That is the unit of selection. Within the individual you have particular alleles that are selected for. But it is the individual as a whole that does better or worse under selection. I couldn't read all of Wilson's article but from your description it sounds like Wilson is saying, in hive insects, that the colony is an individual. And that seems to me to be defensible: after all, half the alleles in the colony come from the queen. The other half come from a drone, but there are a limited number of drones that mate with the queen. So, Wilson can argue that the colony is the unit of selection as an individual. Now, whether he is doing that is another matter. In a hive insect, there is confusion about what is an individual. As we normally look on things, a worker bee is an individual. But it is genetically identical to the sibling workers and the worker lives or dies with the colony. You never see worker bees surviving outside a colony. In that regard, the workers are more akin to the cells in a body instead of individuals. So colonies might compete for resources instead of individual worker bees or queens. In that case, "altruism" would be more alike cooperation between the cells of a multicellular organism. The problem seems to be one of semantics. When Wilson used the term "group" instead of explicitly equating the hive to an individual in terms of natural selection, he allowed misunderstanding to arise. So I expect we are going to see a lot of heat and very little light for a while. But, if we step back objectively and look at what is really being said and realize that Wilson's "group" in terms of hive insects is really an individual in terms of selection, then it looks pretty conventional. Of course, Wilson is talking only about hive insects at the moment. Can he apply it to other groups where the individuality is much more pronounced, i.e, wolves, dolphins, and humans? I think those groups are going to still be explained by "kin selection" and not "group selection".

It appears that you are equating apples and oranges. Mutualism = interaction of individual(s) of one species with an individual of another. This interaction is dependent and is either a) beneficial or b) at least not harmful Multicellularity = interaction between individual cells of the same species to make an organism. They both have cooperation in common, but otherwise are very different. That cooperation between cells in multicellularity has been extensively studied. For instance, many (most) bacteria form loose coalitions of cells at various times that assist one another in identifying sources of food or other tasks. The amoeba Dictolystelium exists most of the time as a single-celled organism that reproduces asexually but in times of food shortage many single-celled Dictolystelium aggregate to form a multicellular organism that not only reproduces sexually but can form specialized "organs". C Zimmer, The slime alternative. Discover 19: 86-93, 1998 (Sept) http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Info/Press/2005/050505.shtml For further reading on the mechanisms of multicellularity, you can read DL Kirk Molecular-Genetic Origins of Multicellularity and Cellular Differentiation. A bit about mutualism and how it evolves can be found at http://blog.lib.umn.edu/denis036/thisweekinevolution/2007/05/

See Sayonara. You didn't post a source for your definition but it seems you got it here: wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn. This uses a non-standard definition of "abstract". "1 a: disassociated from any specific instance " Merriam-Webster As I have seen the term used in scientific papers, abstract thought involves the use of symbols and concepts that don't exist in a concrete form or are dissociated from a concrete form. "soul" is an example, which is what we were talking about in the post you quoted me from. "soul" is not any specific instance and is dissociated from anything physical. Coherent and logical thinking can, and often does, involve specific instances. They appear to in that they have REM sleep. However, without the ability to communicate, you don't know whether those dreams involve concrete sense impressions or the more symbolic, abstract dreams that humans have. I have. They are capable of quite impressive problem solving skills. That still doesn't translate to abstract thought. Now octupi, OTOH, do seem capable of the abstract concept "play". But then they have pretty complex brains.

That is partly true. Technology does remove a lot of selection pressures for us. But it doesn't remove all the selection pressures. However, in the case of the arctic, humans did adapt to the lower UV irradiation by selection for those individuals with less melanin in their skin. In the case of colonizing an asteroid, technology will not totally compensate for the lower gravity and that becomes a selection pressure. You also need to consider gene flow as another counter to speciation. Even if selection pressures are present in two populations, if there is extensive gene flow between those populations, speciation will still not occur. That's why I emphasized the relative reproductive isolation of the !Kung. As human technology improved transportation, travel became easier and gene flow increased. So you have technology inhibiting human speciation by both altering the environment and shielding us from natural selection and by promoting gene flow by better transportation. It still remains to be seen whether small populations such as the !Kung or Himalayan highlanders can remain isolated enough long enough to give a new species of Homo.

No, it's not. Technically, there is no "edge" "when some familiar object expands, such as a sprained ankle or the Roman Empire or a bomb, it gets bigger by expanding into the space around it. Ankles, empires and bombs have centers and edges. Outside the edges, there is room to expand into. The universe does not seem to have an edge or a center or an outside, so how can it expand? A good analogy is to imagine that you are an ant living on the surface of an infl ating balloon. Your world is two-dimensional; the only directions you know are left, right, forward and backward. You have no idea what “up” and “down” mean. One day you realize that your walk to milk your aphids is taking longer than it used to: fi ve minutes one day, six minutes the next day, seven minutes the next. The time it takes to walk to other familiar places is also increasing. You are sure that you are not walking more slowly and that the aphids are milling around randomly in groups, not systematically crawling away from you. This is the important point: the distances to the aphids are increasing even though the aphids are not walking away. They are just standing there, at rest with respect to the rubber of the balloon, yet the distances to them and between them are increasing. Noticing these facts, you conclude that the ground beneath your feet is expanding. That is very strange because you have walked around your world and found no edge or “outside” for it to expand into. The expansion of our universe is much like the inflation of a balloon. The distances to remote galaxies are increasing. Astronomers casually say that distant galaxies are “receding” or “moving away” from us, but the galaxies are not traveling through space away from us. They are not fragments of a big bang bomb. Instead the space between the galaxies and us is expanding. Individual galaxies move around at random within clusters, but the clusters of galaxies are essentially at rest. The term “at rest” can be defined rigorously. The microwave background radiation fills the universe and defi nes a universal reference frame, analogous to the rubber of the balloon, with respect to which motion can be measured. This balloon analogy should not be stretched too far. From our point of view outside the balloon, the expansion of the curved two-dimensional rubber is possible only because it is embedded in three-dimensional space. Within the third dimension, the balloon has a center, and its surface expands into the surrounding air as it infl ates. One might conclude that the expansion of our three-dimensional space requires the presence of a fourth dimension. But in Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the foundation of modern cosmology, space is dynamic. It can expand, shrink and curve without being embedded in a higher-dimensional space. In this sense, the universe is self-contained. It needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into. When it expands, it does not claim previously unoccupied space from its surroundings. Some newer theories such as string theory do postulate extra dimensions, but as our three-dimensional universe expands, it does not need these extra dimensions to spread into." Misconceptions About the Big Bang. Scientific American, March 2005 Yes, you can have objects that are further away. Think of my football pass analogy. Because the receiver is moving away from the quarterback, when the ball gets there the receiver is further away than when the ball left the quarterback's hands. You are doing the "simple calculation" that is in error: "WRONG: The universe is 14 billion years old, so the radius of the observable part is 14 billion light-years. RIGHT: Because space is expanding, the observable part of our universe has a radius of more than 14 billion light-years." HOW LARGE IS THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE? As a photon travels, the space it traverses expands. By the time it reaches us, the total distance to the originating galaxy is larger than a simple calculation based on the travel time might imply— about three times as large." The Scientific American article quoted above.

Please define ""first incremental success that aided survival". You don't mention exaptation at all. You talk about "adaptation". Protoart, you obviously put a lot of time and effort into the work. For that you should be applauded. The running of the birds up inclines is NOT "defensive failure". It's offensive success -- allowing the dino to catch prey that otherwise would have gotten away. I don't think you have read Dial, otherwise you would not have said "defensive failure". Catching prey more often is an "incremental success". Also, you mention speed in your essay. Flapping the forelimbs allows more speed. Exactly what you say is necessary! Let's look at some of what you stated: "Small wings or fins will be useful only if there is major airspeed to achieve any kind of incremental success." However, by exaptation the "wing" isn't evolving as a wing. It is evolving as something else and then it is fully useful as a wing. "The evolution of the wing can only come if the tail can control its orientation. The tail has to come first." But the tail is already present as a means of balancing a theropod dino as they run on two legs. Theropod dinos had tails a hundred million years before one species got flight. This is where your theory would have benefitted from looking at the paleontology data. "Protobird was a diver! Protobird dove for a fish, swam back to shore and climbed back up to the spot from where it dove, and waited for another fish to come by." That's a lot of energy to spend for food. That climb takes lots of energy for the distance you are looking at. Also, if you have distance, you aren't going to be able to see your prey. And, as you intimated, there isn't that much accuracy. If you are diving for fish, you must be pinpoint accurate. Cormorants are that accurate today, but then they fly around looking for fish! You are proposing a condition that, for thousands of generations, there is something worth diving for adjacent to a cliff. Not very likely. "This new technique would be mimicked by others, maybe the young." Mimicking isn't part of natural selection. That's Lamarckism. For natural selection to work the diver must get more food than those that don't. Therefore have more children to pass the alleles for diving to. More children that have alleles for diving than there are children of non-divers. "Protobird's species were waders." If you wade, you don't have to dive. Look at bears and storks today. They wade, then dart their forelimbs or their necks underwater to grab fish. That's a more efficient way to earn a living by catching fish than climb up a cliff so you can dive. By your theory, diving would be selected against, not for. As I said, you put a lot of thought into this. But when you propose a theory, then you have to be prepared to give it up if the evidence is against it. Don't get too attached to your theory. Did you read the article beyond its saying there are a number of hypotheses? For instance, the article states "Scientists generally agree that wings must have been exaptations; they were used by the ancestor for one function, and became useful for flight among the descendants (if they weren't exaptations, then they were adaptations, which would mean that they were wings already used for powered flight; a circular argument)." How do wings aid diving? They don't! All divers put their forelimbs against their body in order to enter the water. If they don't, then the force of hitting the water breaks the bones! Now, did you look at the date of the webpages? If they were written before Dial (as was most of the stuff at the Wiki site, since Dial is the latest reference) then you are getting a controversy that existed in the past. For instance, if you only looked at papers more than 3 years ago, you would see a "controversy" over whether birds evolved from dinos or both birds and dinos had a common reptilian ancestor. That controversy has been settled. The Wiki site uses reference prior to Dial to say what the state of the situation was then -- and then there was a controversy.

Your argument assumes it. For your argument to be correct, then the universe has to be standing still. Otherwise, the quarterback analogy holds. Of course. If the universe is expanding in all directions over a period of time t, the size is going to be at least 2t. Again, blow up a balloon. Measure the distance across the balloon before you start and make 2 marks on opposite sides of the balloon. Then measure the time it takes and figure the velocity of expansion. The diameter of the balloon will be the velocity of expansion x t. However, the distance between your 2 marks will be greater than the expansion -- because you are going around the circumference of the balloon. That one got disproven a long time ago, altho it is still repeated in creationist literature. But then, all kinds of falsehoods are repeated in creationist literature. A spinning universe won't give a redshift.

Protoart, you need to read the following article: 3. Kenneth P.Dial, Wing-Assisted Incline Running and the Evolution of Flight. Science, 299: 402-405, Jan 17, 2003. You can find Science in your local library. You also need to know that natural selection can operate differently than you think in your article. You have successive slight improvements on a function only. THere is something called "exaptation" or "cooption from another function". This means that a trait evolves for one function and, as it gets really good at that function, it serendipitously exhibits another function. Both insect and bird flight are examples of this. In birds, feathers are modified scales. The first feathered dinos only show a very few feathers and these generally on the head. In this case the scales were modified as mating signals. The feathers were mating displays, not for flight. Later feathered dinos show short feathers (like down) all over their bodies. In this situation, feathers are acting as insulation, not for flight. As feathers get longer, they are better for insulation. The longer feathers on the forelimbs also help the dino do something else: run up inclined surfaces. So imagine a small theropod dinosaur chasing its prey -- a smaller dino, a lizard, or a mammal. The prey runs up a steep hill or more likely a fallen tree. By "flapping" its forelimbs, the feathered theropod can run up the hill faster. And catch dinner. As the feathers become longer, the dino can run up steeper and steeper surfaces. As Dial's study shows, "flapping" the forelimbs enables the young bird (that can't fly) to run up slopes that are 100 degrees -- that's more than vertical! So now the theropod dino can chase its prey up the trunk of a tree! However, just at the point where the feathers are long enough to allow running up a vertical surface, the feathers are now long enough to get the animal off the ground if it flaps the forelimbs in a level run! This is not "gradual" flight, it is instant flight. A gradual improvement in running up vertical surfaces ends up with a "sudden" ability to fly! If you want, PM me and I'll send you a PDF copy of the paper. You made a good try, but the problem has been mainly solved. Next time, I suggest you do a search of the primary scientific literature before you post a theory on the web. You might find that somebody has either 1) already come up with your idea or 2) found another answer to the question.

Jeff, Martin's answer is correct. Remember, the universe is expanding -- getting bigger. Your argument assumes that the universe is standing still. If we take your standing still universe, the person on galaxy A cannot see galaxy B! The reason is simple: the light from galaxy B hasn't had time to get to galaxy A yet! Remember, if the universe is 13..4 +/- 0.3 billion years old (the lastest measurement), then there hasn't been enough time for light to traverse 24 billion light years! However, because space itself is expanding, it is possible for objects to be more than 13.7 billion years away from earth at the time the light gets to us. That's because the object has been moving away from us during the light's trip from them to us. So, the light started out 12 billion years ago from 12 billion light years away -- then. However, because both the object and earth have been moving away from each other, they are now farther apart than 12 billion light years. Think of a quarterback throwing a football to a receiver on a straight out pattern. When the quaterback lets go of the ball, the receiver is only 30 yards away, but he is running away from the quaterback, isn't he? By the time the ball gets there, the receiver is 40 yards away from the quarterback.

Behe created a strawman version of Darwinian evolution when he coined "irreducible complexity". He used a quote from Origin of Species in which Darwin said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory [natural selection] would absolutely break down." pg 146 Behe then interpreted this as being a straight line modification from structure A to structure B. But notice Darwin didn't say this. All Darwin talked about was "numerous, succcessive, slight modifications". There is an excellent paper out describing 4 routes of Darwinian evolution, all involving "successive, slight modifications" By using 1 or more of these routes, any IC system can be constructed. This paper is universally ignored by IDers; I have not seen even an attempt to answer it. I will give a summary of the paper below: A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution Richard H. Thornhill and Daviud W. Uussery J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116 available online at http://www.idealibrary.com or http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf "1. Introduction It is generally assumed that Darwinian evolution must occur in a gradual, step-by-step manner, with natural selection acting at each step. A common argument used by anti-Darwinists involves the difficulty of explaining the origin of complex structures by such a process. However, there are several different mechanisms by which Darwinian evolution can occur. It is the purpose of this article to classify the different possible routes of Darwinian evolution. It is important to define four terms clearly before further discussion." This paper is directed specifically at Behe and his "irreducible complexity" hypothesis. Remember Behe's specific claims: there is NO POSSIBLE Darwinian explanation for IC systems. Note that Thornhill and Ussery have already exposed one flaw of IC (and thus of ID), namely, that IDers make a strawman argument of Darwinian evolution to attack. This will become plainer in a bit. The authors start out with definitions, the first being IC lifted right from Darwin's Black Box. They then define a term Behe missed: "Functional Indivisibility The quality of a component of a structure such that there is at least one alteration to it which would render the whole structure absolutely non-functional. This term was implied but not used by Behe (1996a, pp. 45, 142)." The authors then define Darwinian evolution. "Darwinian Evolution Descent of organisms in which the following criteria are met: (i) intergenerational differences are very much smaller than inter-specific ones; (ii) no intervention by conscious agent(s) occurs; (iii) the frequency of mutations or other heritable modifications is unrelated to functional utility; and (iv) selection is the sole means by which heritable modifications are accumulated to form functional structures." I disagree that (ii) is part of Darwinian evolution. It certainly is not part of Origin of Species. However, if they mean "direct manufacture by conscious agent(s)", which is what they probably mean, then it is OK. "Accessibility by Darwinian Evolution The quality of a biological structure such that it could be generated by a sequence of very small changes, each of which is selectively neutral or advantageous (Darwin, 1859, p. 189; Dawkins, 1986, p. 91)." "BACKGROUND It was recently suggested that many biological structures are irreducibly complex, and therefore inaccessible by Darwinian evolution. Thus far, this is merely a restatement of the (fallacious) popular creationist argument about organs such as the eye. However, the new departure was to argue that the components of biochemical systems, unlike those of supramolecular structures, are single molecules, which are often functionally indivisible. The conclusion was that irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components are inaccessible by Darwinian evolution. Eukaryotic undulipodia (cilia and flagella), bacterial flagella, intracellular vesicular transport, and the mammalian immune response and blood- clotting systems were given as examples (Behe, 1996a). The above thesis is unsound, as it is not certain either that any biological structures are irreducibly complex, or that their component molecules are functionally indivisible (Coyne, 1996; Doolittle, 1997; Fulton, 1997; Ussery, 1999). However, the more theoretical question about the accessibility by Darwinian evolution of irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, if such exist, has not been thoroughly examined. ... One factor hampering examination of the accessibility of biological structures by Darwinian evolution is the absence of a classification of possible routes. A suggested classification is presented here." So, let's get to the different routes of Darwinian evolution,and the authors list 4. "2.1 SERIAL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION This means change along a single axis. Although it can generate complicated structures, it cannot generate irreducibly complex structures. The components added may be functionally indivisible, having originated by either mutation or adoption (see below), with a probable example being the steps in an A -* B -* C -* D metabolic pathway, such as the TCA cycle (Behe, 1996a,b). On the other hand, they may be functionally divisible, with an example being increments of giraffe neck length. A molecular example of the latter is the gradual change in enzyme specificity and activity resulting from single amino acid substitutions. " "2.2 PARALLEL DIRECT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION This means approximately synchronous changes in more than one component, so that modification to other components always occurs before the total modification to any one component has become significant. For example, in the evolution of the eye of Nautilus, and of the vertebrate eye if this passed through a Nautilus-like stage (Land & Fernald, 1992), it would be necessary for the evolution of the retina to be approximately synchronous with that of the pinhole eye. The retina is accessible via small steps from a single photosensitive cell, with increments of photosensitivity, and the pinhole eye is likewise accessible from a minor concavity, with incremental advantages initially in physical protection and then in focusing (Nilsson & Pelger, 1994). However, neither component would function without the other, and, furthermore, the retina would be exposed to damage if not enclosed. Parallel direct Darwinian evolution can generate irreducibly complex structures, but not irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components (Fig. 1), and this is the valid conclusion to draw from Behe's thesis." So, Behe was correct about this, but the strawman argument is that parallel direct Darwinian evolution is the ONLY route. "As with serial direct Darwinian evolution, single steps in any of the parallel routes may be functionally either divisible or indivisible. Most complex supramolecular biological structures have primarily this type of accessibility by Darwinian evolution, with examples being bat echolocation, spiders' web construction, honeybee waggle dances, and insect mimicry by orchids (Dawkins, 1986, 1995). Some complex (but not irreducibly complex) molecular systems, such as the globin proteins (Ptitsyn, 1999; Satoh et al., 1999), could also have evolved in this manner." "2.3 ELIMINATION OF FUNCTIONAL REDUNDANCY For example, it is difficult to hypothesize a direct route by Darwinian evolution from mammalian to reptilian jaws, as they consist of different pairs of bones. However, the fossil intermediates Morganucodon and Kuehneotherium had both quadrate-articular and dentarysquamosal articulation. The following postulated evolutionary sequence from reptilian to mammalian jaws, for which there is considerable fossil evidence, involves selective advantage at each step (Kermack & Kermack, 1984): ...Redundancy elimination can generate irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components, and a Darwinian evolutionary route of this type has been suggested for biochemical cascades, such as the blood-clotting system (Robison, 1996)." Oops. Generation of just those systems that Behe says cannot be generated. Not generated by parallel direct evolution, but by elimination of functional redundancy. "2.4 ADOPTION FROM A DIFFERENT FUNCTION For example, scale-feather intermediates would offer no aerodynamic advantage, but one can hypothesize a sequence from scales to primitive but airworthy feathers in which each step offers an increased advantage as insulation. Their use for proto-flight motility would therefore only begin after this sequence. Recently discovered fossil evidence suggests that feather evolution did indeed follow such a sequence, with protofeathers, composed of the same proteins as feathers, in Sinosauropteryx (Chen et al., 1998; K. Padian, pers. comm., 1999), probably marginally airworthy feathers in the non-flying Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx (Ji et al., 1998), and feathers in the flying Archaeopteryx (Padian, 1998). The proto- feathers and feathers probably also possessed functions in display, camouflage, recognition, etc. and it is possible that the actual sequence was more complicated than the above hypothetical one, with evolution at some stages being driven primarily by selection for such functions (Padian & Chiappe, 1998). However, the proto-feathers in Sinosauropteryx were so thickly distributed that they almost certainly did function as insulation (K. Padian, pers. comm., 1999). Adoption from other functions, whether generating an irreducibly complex structure or otherwise, appears to be widespread at the molecular level. The following are a few examples: (I) Many bacteria and yeasts contain chimeric flavohaemoglobins, consisting of a haem domain which is homologous to non-chimeric haem proteins, and a flavin-binding domain which is homologous to NADPH sulphite reductase, toluate 1,2 dioxygenase, cytochrome P450 reductase, and nitric oxide synthase (Moens et al., 1996). (ii) Antifreeze glycoprotein in the blood of Antarctic notothenioid fishes, which enables them to survive in icy seas, is considered to have evolved from a functionally unrelated pancreatic trypsinogen- like protease, and the recent discovery of chimenc genes which encode both the protease and an antifreeze glycoprotein polyprotein strongly supports this theory (Cheng & Chen, 1999). (iii) Crystallins (proteins with refractive functions in the eye lens) are closely related or identical to stress-protective proteins in non-ocular tissues (e.g. Drosophila alpha-crystallins and small heat-shock proteins are homologous). Piatigorsky uses the term "gene-sharing" for the encoding in a single gene of a protein with two or more functions, and suggests that this may be a widespread evolutionary "strategy" (Piatigorsky, 1998)." Just to rub salt in the wound, Thornhill and Ussery go on to demonstrate that one of Behe's examples of IC could arise this way: "There are several apparent instances of adoption in one of Behe's examples, the blood-clotting system. One is the kringle domain, a structure of 90 amino acids with three characteristic disulphide bonds, which is present in various proteins of the blood-clotting cascade, and also in hepatocyte growth factor, which is not involved in blood clotting (Gerhart & Kirschner, 1997, pp. 220-222). A second example is epidermal growth factor, a 53 amino acid peptide with a characteristic motif of six cysteines, which is present in several blood-clotting proteins, and also in the epidermal growth factor precursor, the low-density lipoprotein receptor, laminin (an extracellular matrix protein), and several transmembrane receptors (Davis, 1990)." "There are two ways by which irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components could result from adoption: (i) Generation of an irreducibly complex structure by the joining of two or more non-irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components. A possible example is the V(D)J joining mechanism in the immune systems of jawed vertebrates, ... (ii) Supply of an existing irreducibly complex structure of functionally indivisible components. The structure would have evolved previously by either redundancy elimination or the joining of two or more non-irreducibly complex structures of functionally indivisible components. Undulipodia may be accessible by Darwinian evolution in this manner, as their two main hypothesized origins are from ectosymbionts (Szathm ry, 1987) and spindle tubules (McQuade, 1977; Cavalier-Smith, 1978, 1982). However, the most detailed published hypothetical pathway for the transformation of ectosymbionts into undulipodia was actually one of parallel direct Darwinian evolution." Again, remember Behe's claim. NO POSSIBLE Darwinian route. To refute this claim, it is not necessary to show the actual route but only to have a plausible route. Thornhill and Ussery end up by comparing Dawkin's "brittle" structures to IC systems: "Dawkins uses "brittleness" to mean the quality of a structure such that it must be perfect if it is to work at all, and "brittle" is therefore close or identical in meaning to irreducibly complex and composed of functionally indivisible components. He argues that no biological, and very few artificial, structures are "brittle", and gives the arch as his sole example of one (Dawkins, 1995, pp. 82- 83). " The authors then go on to show TWO routes of Darwinian evolution by which the arch could have evolved. "the arch would be accessible from a single cuboid by two routes of Darwinian evolution: (i) via a heap of stones, which is then removed (i.e. redundancy elimination); and (ii) from a lintel, by two lintels being positioned diagonally and end to end, followed by the insertion of a key stone, and then by the diagonals being replaced by stones increasingly trapezoidal along one axis (i.e. parallel direct Darwinian evolution). The latter is probably analogous to the actual Roman route of invention," So, the whole concept of IC as evidence of ID is refuted by showing the ways and combinations of ways an IC system can arise by Darwinian evolution.

I know, the thread got closed. However, I noticed no one talked about the Bayesian statistics themselves. Bayesian statistics were very popular in the 1980s and 1990s. So popular that a number of clinical medical journals, such as Archives of Internal Medicine, required all clinical studies to use Bayesian statistics to give a probability of the efficacy and safety of a drug. Bayes formula is P(H/E) = [P(E/H) x P (H)]/P(E), where: H = hypothesis E = evidence P(H/E) = the probability of the hypothesis being true given the current evidence P(E/H) = the probability of the evidence being present if the hypothesis is true P(H) = the prior probability of the hypothesis P(E) = probability of the evidence being found P(H) and P(E) are related such that P(E) cannot be less than P(H) Let's try this with an example, Einstein's theory of relativity and the bending of light experiment by Eddington in 1919. It is reasonable to start off a new hypothesis with a prior probability of 0.5 (50/50). So P(H) = 0.5 After all, no current evidence contradicted relativity in 1919. P(E/H) would be high, so let's have it = 0.9 At the time, it was not thought that there was a good probability of finding light bending, so P(E) will be set jsut a bit higher than P(H). So P(E) = 0.6 P(H/E) = (0.9 x 0.5)/0.6 = 0.75. In this case, the probability of Relativity being true increased from 0.5 before the experiment to 0.75 after it. An increase of 0.25 Now, you could argue that Relativity was so weird that it's P(H) should have been lower. In that case, the P(E) would have been higher and you would have gotten a bigger bump. For instance: P(H) = 0.1 and P(E) = 0.2 P(H/E) = (0.9 x 0.1)/0.2 = .45 Now the probability increased by 0.35 instead of 0.25. If you change P(H/E) to 0.99, the new P(H/E) = .495 If you also change P(E) to 0.11, then P(H/E) = 0.9. This is more like what we intuitively feel that the Eddington experiment did for General Relativity. Now, there are several places where you can validly argue the accuracy of assigning numbers in Bayes Theorem in general and in this particular case. However, notice that if you set the probability of God lower, then you are likely to increase the power of Bayes theorem. That is, if you set the P(H) of God at 0.1 instead of 0.5, it is likely you would have seen a greater increase in probability than if you start with P(H) = 0.5. What we are not given in the news article are the different weights of the P(E). P(E) can be unpacked as a sum of P(E)1 + P(E)2 + P(E)3 ... with some of the P's having a negative number. In science you can sometimes make a good estimate of the different P(E), but this was not given for this case, and it can be argued that choosing the P(E) is arbitrary. Also, we don't have the P(E/H) given, altho I suspect it was 0.99 or close. All in all, my opinion is that the Bayesian calculation for the existence of God is GIGO, but there are valid and invalid reasons for thinking so. Also, I tend to think of all Bayesian statistics as GIGO.

1. The website no longer exists. That may indicate it was a scam. 2. There is considerable literature on the effect of electromagnetic fields on human health. However, all these are generated by electrical currents, not magnets. Even so, the data is contradictory. I suggest you do a PubMed search on the subject. I'm afraid your "scientific fact" isn't. When we get to magnets themselves, new data is suggesting that magnetic fields might even be harmful, not beneficial. For instance: Magnetic field exposure and neurodegenerative diseases--recent epidemiological studies.Hug K, Röösli M, Rapp R. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Basel, Switzerland. kerstin.hug@unibas.ch OBJECTIVES: To analyse the results of recent studies not yet included in a 2003 report of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) on occupational exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields as potential risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the online databases of PubMed, ISI Web of Knowledge, DIMDI and COCHRANE, as well as in specialised databases and journals. Eight studies published between January 2000 and July 2005 were included in the review. RESULTS: The findings of these studies contribute to the evidence of an association between occupational magnetic field exposure and the risk of dementia. Regarding amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, the recent results confirm earlier observations of an association with electric and electronic work and welding. Its relationship with magnetic field exposure remains unsolved. There are only few findings pointing towards an association between magnetic field exposure and Parkinson's disease. CONCLUSIONS: The epidemiological evidence for an association between occupational exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields and the risk of dementia has increased during the last five years. The impact of potential confounders should be evaluated in further studies.

Elas, you are trying to define "science" to suit yourself. There is no single definition of science, and yours certainly contradicts a number of generally acceptable definitions. In broad terms, science is the study of the physical universe. Yes, we may want to know why things occur, but that isn't necessary to doing science. Testing whether a phenomenon exists -- without explanation as to cause -- is also science. For instance, when Linde tested whether citrus prevented scurvy, he had no "why". When Copernicus proposed that the sun was the center of the solar system, he had no "why". Both were doing science. In terms of mathematics, testing determines whether the mathematics accurately describe the physical universe. You can come up with all types of mathematical models (as Kepler did for the orbits of the planets), but then you have to test them against observation. The mathematical models must predict what is observed. So, the only criteria on which we judge theories is whether they predict observations. NOT on whether they can tell us "why". You don't like QM because it doesn't answer your personal desire to have a "why" that you like. Too bad. Does QM accurately predict observation? To unprecedented accuracy. That's all science cares about. This isn't true. The mathematics is a tool to predict behavior of quantum particles. It works. In terms of "solution", QM has provided the solution to both the Casimir effect and how black holes can radiate. Elas, to do science you must learn to accept the data. You can't let your personal likes, dislikes, or philosophy interfere with that. The universe is what it is,and if that "is" doesn't provide you with a "why" that you like, too bad for you.

Do any of the "races" have sub-specific names? NO! And the "races" as you listed them don't have allopatric or peripatric distribution. You've tried to make them allopatric, but Negroid is not confined to sub-Saharan Africa. After all, most Melanesians share the same morphological appearance as Negroid but are on the "other side" of both Caucasoid (Persians) and Mongoloid. Also, having "races" develop from sub-species goes against all that we see in evolution. Populations split: you start with a single population and then they split. Not have multiple populations and have them merge. Bombus, right here you contradicted your whole argument! If "race" is a meaningless term, then they can't be equated to sub-species OR used as the basis of new speciation! You destroyed your whole position by agreeing with my contrary position! Don't you see that? So, now that you agree with my position -- that races can't be either sub-species or a basis of speciation, let's look at some of the specific statements for accuracy. 1. That the human "races" have not been classified as a sub-species does mean something. Look at Futuyma again: "A taxonomic term for populations of a species that are distinguishable by one or more characteristics, and are given a subspecific name" 2. Your view of classification is mistaken. Apes and humans are classed in the same order Cattaharines. Humans and apes are clased in a different family -- humans in Homonidae and apes in Pongidae. It can be argued that apes and humans should be in the same family. But that is exactly opposite of what you are arguing. You are saying that human races should be split but arguing that humans and apes should be lumped together. Internally inconsistent. However, it is clear that humans do belong in a separate genus from all other apes. Just as chimps, gorillas, and orangutuans all belong in their own genera. The split from common ancestors happened long enough in the past and there have been several speciations since that split. What we have now is just a few survivors of a very rich bush with lots of species. http://pin.primate.wisc.edu/av/slidesets/slides_t/gifs/19a.gif And I answered that in my first post in the group #13 I suggest you go back and read it. Races are too ill-defined to be a group. There is too much variation of characteristics within races for what you classed as "race" to be a meaningful term. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...AA83414B7F0000 Populations of humans are smaller and more homogenous. And yes, a few populations are isolated and there is evidence that they are evolving to new species. Again, read my post. Whether they continue to diverge or gene flow merges them back into the main population of H. sapiens remains to be seen. If genetic difference is not relevant, then why bring it up? Also, you have to have genetic difference to express itself in how you decide you have a sub-species. It is also necessary for reproductive isolation to continue. As to genetic diversity, read this article: 7. A Gibbons, Studying humans -- and their cousins and parasites. Science 292:627-629, April 27, 2001. A half-remembered radio program is no substitute for an article in a science journal, Bombus. You need a firmer basis on which to base your ideas. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source, because there is no control over content. Anyone can place whatever nonsense they want on the site. Sure it does. If we are looking at the functional unit that becomes a new species, if race is an amalgam of smaller functional units, then it can't be the unit of speciation! Instead, populations are the unit of speciation. Genera can't be the unit of new speciation, either, because they are an amalgam of several different species. So, the "races" as you defined them in post #14 cannot be the source of new species. At one point in biology, "race" = population. But that isn't true in your argument. A population within a "race" could be a source of a new species of Homo. The whole idea of race is based on morphological difference! Let's look at what you wrote again: "reliably distinguished" is morphology. So is the idea of sub-species: 1. One unreliable source and one that can't be checked upoon for accuracy! 2. As I have pointed out with reliable sources you can check, your argument is refuted -- as you agreed to! Humans can't be divided up into subspecies at the moment. Even if they could, "races" would not be it. The "races" are not morphologically, genetically, or reproductively enough different to warrant the division. Now, if you want to make an argument that the !Kung are a subspecies, that would be better. However, in light of Futuyma and other textbooks saying that "subspecies" is a meaningless term, even then you won't get far. You can accurately say that the !Kung are a population. Sure it does! Look at what you wrote about how to distinguish a subspecies: The whole idea of race is based on morphological difference! Let's look at what you wrote again: "reliably distinguished" is morphology. Of 6 example criteria you proposed, 4 of them are morphological! Which is the phenetic species concept! So you are basing sub-species on the phenetic species concept? LOL! Of course you have an idea what I'm talking about. That's why you went to ad hominem. You got caught and now you are trying to distract by insulting me. Again you destroy your whole agrument! If sub-species are completely interfertile, then there is no basis for speciation! Speciation in sexually reproducing organisms requires reproductive isolation! That's how all the tests on "incipient" speciation are done: looking at reproductive isolation and how far it has gone. You tried to claim reproductive isolation for the races/sub-species: "2. The flow of genetic material between the group and other groups is small and can be expected to remain so because even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent." It's obvious that, when the human "races" are placed together, considerable interbreeding results. Therefore, by your definition, the human races are NOT subspecies.

They don't fit the definition of sub-species. Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology: "Subspecies: A taxonomic term for populations of a species that are distinguishable by one or more characteristics, and are given a subspecific name (e.g. the spuspecies of the rat snake Elaphe obsoleta; se Figure 21 in Chapter 9). In zoology, subpecies have different (allopatric or parapatric) geographical distributions, so are equivalent to "geographic races;" in botany, they may be sympatric forms. No criteria specify how different populations should be to warrent designation as subspecies, so some systematists have argued that the practice of naming subspecies should be abandoned." pg 450 "Race: A vague, meaningless term, sometimes equivalent to subspecies and sometimes to polymorphic genetic forms within a population." None of the "races" you mention have been given sub-species names. These are the general "races" listed, but none of them are sub-species. The "races" you named are too large to develop into different species. And, of course, with human transportation NONE of them are isolated. There is no precise definition of species, but that doesn't mean the term is fuzzy. It simply means that evolution is true: since species change from one to another gradually over generations, any definition of species is always going to be able to find a population in that transition. "Races" is a meaningless term, as Futuyma (and the Scientific American article) note and demonstrate. "Races" are not the same as biological populations. But the variation is still very low compared to other species. The whole variation within the entire human species is less than within one population of chimps in western Africa! Humans can be divided into populations. See my post. But "races" are not those populations! Each "race" as you defined it consists of dozens/hundreds of populations. It's more than that. Again, see the definition of sub-species by Futuyma. What's your source, Bombus? This might be a way to define populations. It is not a way to define "species". It is closest to the phenetic species concept: which is based on morphological/physiological differences. However, "a particular ritual breeding behavior" nor only "number or primary wing feathers" can be criteria, because number of primary wing feathers can vary from individual to individual. The phenetic species concept was the one used in Darwin's time and is still applied to fossils. It is NOT the one used between contemporary sexually reproducing species -- such as humans. This one doesn't exist. You are misrepresenting the biological species concept. That concept states: Biological species are defined as "different species represent different gene pools, which are goups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups." D Futuyma Evolutionary Biology pg 27. Notice how you have changed "do not exchange genes" to "flow of genetic material ... is small". You have warped the terminology to suit your own ends. Bombus, the history in the last 400 years have conclusively demonstrated that humans from all races can mate and produce viable offspring. There are none of "even if the two groups were to be placed together they would not interbreed to any great extent". Humans of different the different "races" interbreed quite freely to a great extent. You only have to look at the statistics on how many "Negroids" in the US have "Caucasian" genes. The Caucasian slaveholders interbred with their Negroid slaves "to a great extent".

I posted it as a resource for those who are interested. If you are not interested, then don't read the articles. Absolutely not. Some cancers -- particularly osteosarcomas -- turn up in younger people. The current theory is that cancers arise from adult stem cells that have lost their growth control. Our bodies have mechanisms to eliminate cancer cells early before they multiply and actually form a cancer. Remember, a cancer that is detectable as a lump or by CT or MRI has at least a billion cells in it. However, no mechanism can be perfect and prevent every cell that loses growth control from eventually multiplying. Eventually a cell will arise that can get around all the mechanisms designed to kill it. Natural selection only cared about mechanisms that were good enough to get us past the age where we have kids. Natural selection is blind to what happens after that. Which explains why most cancers happen to people > 50 years of age: they have already had kids. It is not possible to have a complex machine -- and organisms can be looked at as complex biochemical machines -- that can function forever. Despite the most elaborate repair processes, eventually an essential part will fail and the repair process will fail. A completely error-free machine or error-free repair process is not possible due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

For those interested in the genetics of aging, a recent issue of Nucleic Acids Research is devoted to the topic. You can read the articles free online at: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/nar/for_authors/dna_aging_collection.html