► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Evolution’

Extravagant Results of Nature’s Arms Race

by bar ( 33 Comments › )
Filed under Evolution, Science at March 28th, 2009 - 3:34 am

Nature is reputed to be red in tooth and claw, but many arms races across the animal kingdom are characterized by restraint rather than carnage.

24armor-500 Competition among males is often expressed in the form of elaborate weapons made of bone, horn or chitin. The weapons often start off small and then, under the pressure of competition, may evolve to attain gigantic proportions. The Irish elk, now extinct, had antlers with a span of 12 feet. The drawback of this magnificent adornment, though, was that the poor beast had to carry more than 80 pounds of bone on its head.

In a new review of sexual selection, a special form of natural selection that leads to outlandish armament and decoration, Douglas J. Emlen, a biologist at the University of Montana, has assembled ideas on the evolutionary forces that have made animal weapons so diverse.

Sexual selection was Darwin’s solution to a problem posed by the cumbersome weapons sported by many species, and the baroque ornaments developed by others. They seemed positive handicaps in the struggle for survival, and therefore contrary to his theory of natural selection. To account for these extravagances, Darwin proposed that both armaments and ornaments must have been shaped by competition for mates.

[…]

Dr. Emlen said he became interested in animal armament after studying a species of dung beetle in Panama that specialized in monkey scat. He broadened his studies to dung beetles worldwide and noticed a pattern in their weaponry. Dung beetles may have started their highly successful career feeding on dinosaur ordure, and seem then to have diversified to that of mammals. They have two principal strategies. Some, like the scarabs, cut out pieces of dung and roll it away for private consumption. Other species dig under a deposit and draw it into their tunnels.

The Rest @ NY Times

Evolutionists Vs. Evolution, Voodoo Science?

by bar ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Evolution at March 21st, 2009 - 1:53 pm

H/T: Bible believer

Judge in custody dispute orders home schooled kids into public school, because they are dangerous Creationist.

by bar ( 32 Comments › )
Filed under Evolution, Political Correctness, Religion at March 13th, 2009 - 11:12 am

Never mind the fact that these kids ages 10, 11 and 12 score at least two years above their grade level. It’s the religious slant that bothers the judge, who contradicts himself later claiming ‘its not about religion’, where have I heard one that before? It appears parental rights are not allowed for Christians only the atheists, how nice that their rights trump ours.

I am sure 1.0 will claim victory, “real” science has finally won!

A judge in Wake County said three Raleigh children need switch from home school to public school. Judge Ned Mangum is presiding over divorce proceeding of the children’s parents, Thomas and Venessa Mills.

Venessa Mills was in the fourth year of home schooling her children who are 10, 11 and 12 years old. They have tested two years above their grade levels, she said.

“We have math, reading; we have grammar, science, music,” Venessa Mills said.

Her lessons also have a religious slant, which the judge said was the root of the problem.

“My teaching is strictly out of the Bible, and it’s very clear. It is very evident so I just choose to follow the Bible,” Venessa Mills said.

In an affidavit filed Friday in the divorce case, Thomas Mills stated that he “objected to the children being removed from public school.” He said Venessa Mills decided to home school after getting involved with Sound Doctrine church “where all children are home schooled.”

Thomas Mills also said he was “concerned about the children’s religious-based science curriculum” and that he wants “the children to be exposed to mainstream science, even if they eventually choose to believe creationism over evolution.”

In a verbal ruling, Mangum said the children should go to public school.

“He was upfront and said that, ‘It’s not about religion.’ But yet when it came down to his ruling and reasons why, ‘He said this would be a good opportunity for the children to be tested in the beliefs that I have taught them,'” Venessa Mills said.

All sides agree the children have thrived with home school, and Vanessa Mills thinks that should be reason enough to continue teaching at home.

The rest.

I would almost guarantee that if this home schooling was non-religious, the judge would then claim it is better for the kids to be home schooled. Which the test scores prove out right. There was no suggestion in the article that the kids scored lower in science which could then be a reason, matter of fact it’s the opposite and I assume that’s across the board.

I understand the parents are getting divorced, but then shouldn’t it be split? Public school at dad’s and home school with mom. Given the test scores neither the judge or dad is looking out for the kids best interests in any aspect. And it is all because of religious bigotry, sad state of affairs this is.

(Update: The Judges orders. It appears this story was reported with a slant, I would make the hasty generalization and call the church this mom attends as a “cult”, but from the info here, they are a bit strange.)

Pandas Thumb finally gives Darwin Johnson a thumbs up! Oh, sorry it was just a lizard pretending to be someone else.

by bar ( 130 Comments › )
Filed under Evolution, LGF at March 7th, 2009 - 5:01 pm

It’s great when conservatives and others who tend to support the Republican party are willing to take a stand against the creationist elements on the right. Charles Johnson may not be, strictly speaking, a conservative, but his blog Little Green Footballs is widely read by conservatives, and he’s been doing a great job defending evolution against the religious right. Regardless of your views of his politics, he deserves applause for speaking up on behalf of real science in the face of an often hostile crowd. To see what I mean, just click over and scroll down. – Pandas Thumb

I suppose if militant atheists like the religious bigot Richard Dawkins and others are actually helping the cause of Darwinism, then that comment makes sense.

In my opinion they only hurt the cause of Darwinism. You don’t persuade people by being condescending and insulting while acting like a pompous ass.

From my experience the most condescending and insulting have been the Darwinist, that in and of itself speaks volumes.

You can only persuade people by being fair mined, honest and balanced and then let people decide for themselves. But you must also respect their opinion otherwise how could you ever expect them to respect yours?

(Update @ 4:06pm, Timothy Sandefur who is quoted above from Panda’s Thumb is a Senior Staff Attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation.)

Also see http://sandefur.typepad.com/

I think that is really “Cato the elder” at 1.0 or something like that. The same who baited Robert Spencer into joining whatever hate group that was. Kind ironic the createor of the hate group is a member of 1.0, yet they somehow claim that makes Robert a bad guy. Nothing better then planting your very own BS evidence and then saying look, evidence!

Also note how 9/11 Troofer this is becoming. Attorneys pretending to be experts in Darwinism while the 9/11 Troofers have economic professors pretending to be experts in structural engineering.

Same shit different topic.

Updated # 1 @ 6:00pm, March 10th.

Timothy Sandefur says below in post # 124: ….“but I can say with certainty that I have never written anything under the pseudonym of “Cato the Elder,” and don’t know who you are. I don’t spend time in chat rooms or blog discussion areas, and rarely post comments to blogs.”

Update # 2: Tonight I found this at 1.0

# 1053 Cato 3/10/09 8:17:57 am reply quote

“I have represented a lot of sign owners in my day and the 1st Amendment arguments usually don’t work because there are time and place restrictions applicable. Also, since Lady Bird Johnson’s beautification initiative, signs have been considered an eyesore”.

Now, I suppose its not impossible to have a poster at 1.0 who is an attorney with this nic (Cato) and a reader of 1.0 from the Cato institute who is also an attorney and they are not the same person, but I still wonder, the coincidence seems a bit close.

It should be noted that Mr Sandefur is part of the Darwinist crusade to censor balanced discussion of evolutionary theory in science classrooms.

So Charles Darwin Johnson and Mr Sandefur see eye to eye in that regard. These types are looking to have their atheistic agenda taught in public school on the public dime, while others views are not allowed. I detest censorship of any kind and as we see, others not so much.

“Mr. Sandefur wishes to exempt his own religious belief — atheism — from constitutional scrutiny”.-Michael Egnor

And also see this from the Discover Institute

Timothy Sandefur responds to Michael Egnor