Just a quick note: I think the global warming stuff and environmentalist tactics lately, especially those done by world governments and international bodies [like the Copenhagen Treaty being debated this week], are a smokescreen for exerting worldwide control, i.e. the "new world order." It's here, folks....

The computer blocks out anything it finds that is religious in nature, as well as anything game-related.

I can see game-related sites, but why religious ones? What's the point?

(edited)

Religion and politics are topics that are considered no-go areas for polite conversation. Probably because they cause so much division and excitement but probably also because they have some depth to them.

It's a fine example GB, but it doesn't address the point I am making. The lung fish is a fish that has lungs. That's fine. It doesn't have gills. My point is that the two breathing systems and mechanism each have to be totally complete and working or the creature dies. Having lungs proves it has lungs. Whales have lungs, dolphins has lungs. No problem. How does any aquatic creature go from gills to lungs? That is the question. Not can an aquatic creature have lungs. Shadowlander assumed it was in transition. He asked if it was going to lungs to gills or gills to lungs. You pointed out it simply has lungs. That bolsters my point. My point is you can only have one or the other to work. If you are going to give me a specific example, give me one that shows the transition. Good luck finding one. If a fish that has been shown to be able to breath through both lungs and gills, let alone having both, it would be all over the place. The mechanisms to absorb oxygen through gills work very differently than lungs. The transition is not a gradual process that fur color or even fins to fingers could be.

Think about it GB, your research says very clearly, "These fish will drown if not allowed to come up and get air." A fish with gills will die if left in the air and not allowed to get completely submerged. The argument is not can fish have lungs. I'll never argue that. Whales and Dophins are fine enough example for me. How can a creature gradually go from requiring to be completely submerged in water to having to come out for air on a frequent basis? The lung fish does not answer that question, which is the answer evolution needs in this case. So no, that is not proof of natural selection or evolution.

With all due respect Fencer, you need to read my posts more carefully (maybe this is why you missed things in the textbooks? ).

During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills

All the fish referenced above have gills and breathe through them when in water, but they also have other means of respiration when necessary, thus belying (and addressing) your point. Lungs are not the only adaptation some fish have developed. Some also breathe AIR through their SKIN when necessary .

GB

I'm all for small business and entrepeneurship, but I think Big Corporations are the ones "exerting control" and "Fudging the data" all in the name of Greed. I don't think Adam Smith would recognize what's been happening in regards to Market Control by the Big Fish as being what he was on about. And I don't think Rand thought her ideas out to their logical conclusion.

Big Corporations may set the price for fuel oil, gasoline, and by extension natural gas, but they're not the ones who tell me "You're not allowed to set your thermostat to this setting", or "you're only allowed to turn on your lights at this time", or "You'll be charged $X if you're not driving a hybrid". There's only one agency that can do that, and that's federal govt.

We agree to an extent on Rand. I'm no Ayn Rand cheerleader, but I think that her basic, down to brass tacks philosphy on economics works perfectly fine. Let the ones with the business saavy and entreprenurial expertise be. They'll start the businesses, said businesses will grow, and then they'll hire more people, resulting in lower unemployment, better competition, and more overall cash flow. Government is business' biggest enemy. And if you want to mention someone who really needed to think things out to their logical conclusion one couldn't go long without mentioning Marx, who was as shortsighted as a fruit bat. I have yet to see anywhere with a population larger than 10 people where anything of his worked. Rand's at least has been tried on larger scales and typically holds water. What's interesting about the two is that they both hold thoroughly atheistic viewpoints...almost total opposites, really. Marx held that the power should be shared by all men/women equally while Rand felt that business should be run by only those with the gifts to run it. Reading 1984 was really not that much different than reading Atlas Shrugged, I felt. Where was God?

And if there are any "fudging of facts" by any corporations involved with the Green Scheme then trust me, it's for the money. Always follow the money. You'll find it as the root cause for so many of the world's ills.

And like you, that is as close to politics as I want to get.

I can see game-related sites, but why religious ones? What's the point?

I'm not 100% sure but I think they reason that if I'm sitting there reading religious things that there's the potential that someone may take offense at it. There was a group that would gather many years ago at my company (before I was hired there) that would go to one of the breakrooms in the building and hold an ad hoc Bible meeting. I don't know that anyone ever got offended by it but HR had to step in because there was the potential for that to occur. HR reasoned that if you want to have a Bible meeting you can do so at your house with the same people...why do it on Company property?

And again, it's not a Free Religion issue because the Government had nothing to do with it. This was a Company enforcing its rules to ensure a neutral working environment. The Director of HR I worked with was a pastor as a 2nd job and he said he hated having to do it, but I feel he was right. How would it have been if a group of Muslims came in, spread out carpets in the breakroom several times a day, and prayed facing the east? See why it was in the best interests of the company? Thus I think they applied the same principle to religious websites to sort of cut any trouble off at the pass, so to speak.

FencerforJesus;
Enjoyed the science lesson earlier. I am afraid I must correct you on one item though. Lucy was not the "missing link" that was assembled from a pig's tooth. That was Nebraska Man. For those unfamiliar with the story here's a quick rendering;
Tooth is found by a gentalman, (Sorry, I forget the name), he declares it belonging to one of our ancestores. He reassembles a jaw to fit the tooth. Finding that to be not enough to impress, he re-creates the face, followed by the body. As it is only half human it is appropriatly hunched over, and hairy. As I understand a girlfriend was included later.
All this is accomplished with the approval of the evolutionary(scientific) community.
Later it is discovered that the tooth of our "ancestore" was that of a pig.
We might want to think over those "artest's renderings" of fossils we keep seeing as proof.

Marx held that the power should be shared by all men/women equally while Rand felt that business should be run by only those with the gifts to run it.

Okay, I know we're talking business, not politics, per se. But I just wanna understand. Marx believed in democracy, while Rand believed in benevolent dictatorship, like Kipling and Carlyle? [Kipling hated democracy and Carlyle believed in "captains of industry." ]

Your company and religious practices: thanks for the explanation.

HR reasoned that if you want to have a Bible meeting you can do so at your house with the same people...why do it on Company property?

Good point, assuming the government doesn't step in and say you can't conduct a Bible study in your house, something they attempted in California a month or two ago.

Science corrects itself. Nebraska Man was a clear Fraud repudiated by all Scientists when it was uncovered. It was Science that eventually exposed the Fraud. Using Nebraska Man to attack Evolution is a mite disingenuous .

220CT, There is no way to discuss Business and Economic Theory without discussing Politics. Economics IS Politics. There is no way this can be taken further at this forum .

I would suggest a Google search to answer your questions. But please take care to look at many sites of many opposing opinions. Rand and Marx both have their virtues and their faults (though I lean more towards one than the other ).

GB

220CT, There is no way to discuss Business and Economic Theory without discussing Politics. Economics IS Politics. There is no way this can be taken further at this forum .

I wasn't discussing anything. I'm not even saying I admire either Rand or Marx. I was just trying to get a political/literary/economic "lay of the land."

FYI: you google. I wiki.

GB, just wondering, what about Piltdown Man? Scientists said it was supposed to be one of the most important fossils showing evolution to be true. But wasn't it also was discovered to be counterfeit? And if it was, it becomes more difficult with each new counterfeit to believe in evolution. Especially fossils from China have been shown to be put together, though they look very real. But it's another story when they get CT-scanned.

Sorry 220CT, I wasn't intending to single you out, I was just trying to point out that it would be impossible to answer your questions without talking politics .

I will try to give you a nutshell version while remaining as neutral as possible (please forgive me Mods ).

Ayn Rand was a "libertarian" (with a small L), her views superficially resemble Anarchism, but followed to their logical conclusion would lead to Authoritarianism (in my opinion). I like her Individualist intent if not her economic conclusions. She was an Atheist.

Karl Marx was a Social Scientist who developed a theory of Capital, that even Capitalists recognize as relevant. His theory taken to it's logical conclusion leads to Economic Populism and Political Democracy (again, in my opinion).

Some Revolutionary Movements mistook his metaphoric phrase "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" as a Blueprint for Action, when what he meant was rather like the Founding Father's "Liberty must be watered with the blood of Tyrants". I like his scholarly analysis and reflections on the
complementary nature of the Individual and the Collective. He was also an Atheist.

Being an Agnostic, leaning more to the Spiritual side of things, I think both Rand and Marx undervalued Man(and Woman)-kind's need for some kind of Spiritual Connection.

With Apologies

GB

EDIT: I just saw your post Lady G . Again, the Piltdown Man Hoax was uncovered by SCIENTISTS. Indeed many Scientists were skeptical about the "find" from the beginning. But it took 40 years and better technology to prove the Fakery.
It would MUCH harder nowadays to pull off such a Hoax, and it has no bearing on the Vast Mountains of Scientific Evidence confirming Evolution.

Being an Agnostic, leaning more to the Spiritual side of things, I think both Rand and Marx undervalued Man(and Woman)-kind's need for some kind of Spiritual Connection.

I have to agree to an extent. I think both were probably searching for something beyond the theories they were espousing. Who knows? Maybe they found it before the end and we won't find out till' we get there.

No government run by Man (or Woman)-Kind will ever be perfect, although some are better forms than others. The only real government that will ever exist in total perfection is when Christ returns. It's the only time in my life I'll ever be happy to say I was once a believer in Representative Democracy who fled headlong over to Theistic Monarchy. Now that will make a funny t-shirt in the New Earth, eh?

Fair point. But maybe Western Society would not have faced crippling so much if it weren't for the greed of oil companies and oil-exporting countries in not even considering developing viable alternatives to oil and coal a lot sooner than the present. Like in 1974, when the first Oil crisis happened.

How is that the oil companies fault? They're under no obligation to develop new power sources, that's the scientists jobs. As for the oil-exporting countries, most of them export oil and that's it. The Middle East would be bankrupt if it weren't for oil. It's kind of naive to expect these entities to be so noble and high-minded that they'll destroy their sources of income for the betterment of humanity or whatever when most individual citizens couldn't be convinced to do so.

Well it is the oil companies' fault to a degree, but not only them, I'll admit. But I don't really want to go into politics. In 1973-4 OAPEC, as it was then, put up its prices for political reasons and the whole structure worldwide threatened to collapse. This was the Arab world exerting political pressure as it has done repeatedly right up to this day, when Saudi Arabia only last week was reported as casting doubt on the implications of climate change. Of course Saudi Arabia would say so, wouldn't it?

And it was about 1974 and subsequently that the idea occurred to many, that the supply of oil was finite anyway. I'm not talking politics if I am sharing my memories of those days when oil workers wanted higher wages and so the rest of us had to queue for rationed petrol, or when Governments learned that the present supply could be eked out by taxing petrol consumption, a measure that we know would be intensely unpopular in USA. If you go anywhere in the world it doesn't hurt to compare petrol prices with what you pay in your home town, and so it looks like we pay more for petrol than in some other parts of 'Western Society', even though we have limited supplies of petroleum and natural gas of our own.

And I have personal experience of the sort of economic downturn which can happen when car manufacturers become unviable due to their consumers' lack of income, since car manufacturers are often large employers of relatively unskilled workers, who nevertheless have young wives and families to support. But when in 1986 or thereabouts the oil companies could and did change their processing practices, due to scientific worries about lead in petrol, we duly got unleaded petrol for all cars since that time. So even big multi-national oil companies can change as needed.

By 2000, whilst completing my Masters, I came across a marketing reference to those famous oil companies of what different responses companies and organisations could have in the case of a diminishing supply of their products to sell. (P. Kotler Marketing, I think) Some might investigate what alternate technologies and energy sources could be developed and devote time and resources to do so. Others, like the oil companies, prefer not to take this option, and choose to look for yet more sources of their product, even when such sources might be also finite. I repeat, this is not a political statement, but a marketing reference.

Oil is an immensely useful product but also a very polluting one. Remember the Exxon Valdez, and, to be strictly fair, the recent oil spill in the Timor Sea. Oil is needed for plastics and plastic products that can substitute for metals that also consume vast amounts of energy. But it is also used for plastic shopping carry bags that people are too lazy to do without, and which, so far, no manufacturer has successfully made biodegradable, so that they can decay safely in landfill.

But then similar remarks might be said about the cars that consume the oil. It is our individual responsibility to see that the cars we have are properly serviced and maintained so that they don't belch fumes all over the place. It is Government's responsibility to supply the infrastructure needed for a good public transport system, to ensure that we don't have to use cars unnecessarily. And it is the oil companies' obligation to itself and its employees to ensure it can remain in business. Remember, that the oil companies, all of them, have had 35 years of Middle Eastern turmoil and warnings of future oil shortages to keep them on their toes. And what have they done about it?

Lately we have already noticed changes in our oil supply. Brazil and other South American countries depend on Ethanol rather than petroleum, so now our cheapest grade of petrol has 10% Ethanol mix. Ethanol is a renewable resource, you see, unlike petroleum. The implications are that car manufacturers have to ensure that an ethanol mix can be used safely in their product, over what period of time the car is to be used. Toyota, Ford and maybe other car manufacturers are developing hybrid cars such as the Prius, which runs on electricity.

But this might very well be doing too little too late for humanity. Think what could have been if in 1974 oil companies had taken the hint and said they would not be hostages to whatever the Middle East wanted to bully and blackmail them and their governments into doing. Think what might have happened if the oil companies had chosen to examine other sources of energy, if only as a backup. And consider if today's climate change would have the same urgency it appears to have now.

I'm studiously avoiding the political. It is a matter of history that the USA had to keep its citizens happy, and, being embroiled in the Cold War with the USSR, plus the aftermath of the Vietnam war, it had its hands tied at the time. Besides, the USA government doesn't have any jurisdiction where I live. However, after Chernobyl and the final collapse of the USSR, did anyone else notice that Russia was also left with mammoth environmental problems, due to its competing with USA, and bad management of its resources, including its oil supply?

Oh by the way, remember CFC and what it was supposed to do to the Ozone Layer? Do we hear about the Ozone Layer any more?

Fair point. But maybe Western Society would not have faced crippling so much if it weren't for the greed of oil companies and oil-exporting countries in not even considering developing viable alternatives to oil and coal a lot sooner than the present. Like in 1974, when the first Oil crisis happened.

How is that the oil companies fault? They're under no obligation to develop new power sources, that's the scientists jobs. As for the oil-exporting countries, most of them export oil and that's it. The Middle East would be bankrupt if it weren't for oil. It's kind of naive to expect these entities to be so noble and high-minded that they'll destroy their sources of income for the betterment of humanity or whatever when most individual citizens couldn't be convinced to do so.

Well it is the oil companies' fault to a degree, but not only them, I'll admit. But I don't really want to go into politics. In 1973-4 OAPEC, as it was then, put up its prices for political reasons and the whole structure worldwide threatened to collapse. This was the Arab world exerting political pressure as it has done repeatedly right up to this day, when Saudi Arabia only last week was reported as casting doubt on the implications of climate change. Of course Saudi Arabia would say so, wouldn't it?

Of course the Saudi Arabians demands for investigations into Climategate is sheer self-interest. I doubt seriously they were morally outraged by people falsifying data. But the fact still remains the data was falsified, the scientists lied about their findings, and even deleted data that showed that global temperatures are declining. We know that they conspired to discredit and ruin scientists and scientific journals that questioned the validity of their climate change theories. If the people at East Anglia were hoaxing the world, why should we believe anything any of the climate change proponents say?

If you go anywhere in the world it doesn't hurt to compare petrol prices with what you pay in your home town, and so it looks like we pay more for petrol than in some other parts of 'Western Society', even though we have limited supplies of petroleum and natural gas of our own.

I remember seeing a comparison of worldwide gas prices and you're right, your gas prices are about twice what we pay. Kind of puts all the griping over here about prices in perspective.

Lately we have already noticed changes in our oil supply. Brazil and other South American countries depend on Ethanol rather than petroleum, so now our cheapest grade of petrol has 10% Ethanol mix. Ethanol is a renewable resource, you see, unlike petroleum. The implications are that car manufacturers have to ensure that an ethanol mix can be used safely in their product, over what period of time the car is to be used. Toyota, Ford and maybe other car manufacturers are developing hybrid cars such as the Prius, which runs on electricity.

Ethanol isn't that great an alternative. A lot of environmentalists are pointing out that the rainforests of South America are being clear-cutted even faster than they already were so farmers can grow more corn for ethanol. Then there's the fact that the more land devoted to growing corn for ethanol, the less land available to grow food for people. Thus comes the dilemma of letting people starve or cutting down more forests, which is never a good option.

But this might very well be doing too little too late for humanity. Think what could have been if in 1974 oil companies had taken the hint and said they would not be hostages to whatever the Middle East wanted to bully and blackmail them and their governments into doing. Think what might have happened if the oil companies had chosen to examine other sources of energy, if only as a backup. And consider if today climate change would have the same urgency it appears to have now.

The unfortunate fact is that the majority of the world's oil is controlled by petty thugs and tyrants who saw a chance to make a buck by exploiting the world's need for oil. I'm sure many people in the oil industry would like to tell the various dictators in the Middle East to take a long walk off a short pier, but then they would be out of business. They could come drill here, but the caribou need protecting from those scary oil wells.

Oh by the way, remember CFC and what it was supposed to do to the Ozone Layer? Do we hear about the Ozone Layer any more?

I'm not remembering what CFC was. Was that the theory that aerosols were ripping a hole in the ozone layer and we were all going to be killed by the sun or something? Anybody know what happened with that? I vaguely remember there being something of a panic over it when I was younger, but I haven't heard anyone mention it in a long time.

With all due respect Fencer, you need to read my posts more carefully (maybe this is why you missed things in the textbooks? ).

During this time, they breathe air through their swim bladder instead of through their gills

All the fish referenced above have gills and breathe through them when in water, but they also have other means of respiration when necessary, thus belying (and addressing) your point. Lungs are not the only adaptation some fish have developed. Some also breathe AIR through their SKIN when necessary .

GB

I am going to make the assumption here that my point is not being made clear. As I said in my other post, having lungs is fine. Having gills is fine. Having both, while I do admit is new to me, is still fine. What you are missing is that they are complete fully functional systems. The point I was making though was the transition. Evolution, by its very definition, requires gradual change. It also requires casting off of vestigular (sp?) parts. Your post makes it very clear that the lung fish has to come up for air. If it started with gills only, are you saying it relies on gills through numerous generations until lungs developed and then suddenly had to rely on those lungs to survive? When does the transition take place?

If a fish already has gills, it has no need for lungs. The lungs are vestigular. Why be forced to come to the surface just for air, when you are fine under the surface? I'd be very interested in finding out how brand new DNA for lungs would get to a fish with gills. Mutations doesn't work. Using humans as an example. DNA determines, height, eye color, skin color, hair color, build, etc. These things can vary, but it is just a recombination of data that makes a human a human. For fish, thier DNA can alter their physical appearance. But for a fish with gills, there is no code combination that will give them lungs. And even if there was such a combo, it takes much more than an organ to run in a organism. Your heart does nothing to help you without the blood vessels going through your entire body. And still, along the blood vessels, there are devices that take the oxygen from your red blood cells and give them to your cells, while giving the red blood cells the CO2 to return to the heart and then to the lungs. The point is the everything has to work together or it doesn't work.

The going from gills to lungs is the issue. Not whether a creature has both or not. Even if you have half a lung, the entire rest of the lung breathing system must be intact. If a lung fish can drown and it is an example of evolution, it would have to rely on gills while lungs developed, but where does the switch take place? The only thing that makes sense is that it started out with both set of respiration systems from the very beginning. But going from gills to lungs is only one side of the issue.

Once a blow fish has its lungs, how does it get rid of the gills to head landward? If it's already relying on its lungs, apparently the answer is that the gills are no longer needed, so it get's rid of them. I've heard the same responses about our appendices, the tonsils, the adnoids, etc. There is no such thing as vestigular parts. They are defined as parts that are no longer needed or have no function. Being able to survive without and not having purpose are two very different things.

I had my adnoids removed when I was 7 and I am getting along just fine. Does that mean they were no longer necessary? No. They still had a function and if I still had them they would still be performing that function. But when I have kids (none right now) they will be born with adnoids, because the DNA and chromasomes I have and my to be wife, state that when a child is born, he/she will have adnoids. But let's say my child is born without due to an abberation. This is a mutation that evolution supports. But if that child has a child, my grandchild will still have them.

Now, I have been intentionally avoiding evolution's key point in evolution: the going from fins to fingers. There is a big problem with this concept. The transition. How does a fish survive to get food? It has to swim and eat the plankton or whatever else it find in the ocean. How does a land animal get food? It has to walk, climb, or hunt to get it. How does a creature that is in the gradual transition state from being able to swim and walk survive? Does it just lie on the beach waiting for food to get to it while millions of generations pass until it can walk on its own? Fish fins enable it to glide through the water, where if detatched as a hand would be, it would not be able to do so. That doesn't even address the issue of the tail bones features between fish and land animals. Completley different functions that go well beyond the just changing from a tail to legs. Seriously, think about the implications that go on with these gradual changes. They don't work.