[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;173813]Is it not the case that the disagreement occurs exactly on this point (the genesis of initial life structures)?[/QUOTE]

I'll admit to not following the disagreement closely in recent decades. But historically this has not been the major disagreement. Look at the Stokes trial - the issue there is whether man and apes had a common ancestor, not about the origin of that common ancestor. Originally this was about whether every species was a act of special creation. In decades past one of the primary anti-evolution arguments was the lack of transitional forms - again about speciation, not origin. This "lack of transitional forms" was often accompanied by arguments about the impossibility of chimerical animals, in the mistaken belief that common ancestors would require flying pigs in order to have both pigs and robins today.

Perhaps a remedy for the Republican Party would be to clarify in the public's mind what evolution really says and where the disagreements happen. Just this would greatly improve the quality of the public debate. Much of the anti-evolution debate is presently analogous to claiming Christianity is wrong because the Easter Bunny cannot possibly color eggs, and reindeer cannot fly - the point being the attackers don't understand the things they are attacking.

[QUOTE=wblipp;173822]I'll admit to not following the disagreement closely in recent decades. But historically this has not been the major disagreement. Look at the Stokes trial - the issue there is whether man and apes had a common ancestor, not about the origin of that common ancestor. Originally this was about whether every species was a act of special creation. In decades past one of the primary anti-evolution arguments was the lack of transitional forms - again about speciation, not origin. This "lack of transitional forms" was often accompanied by arguments about the impossibility of chimerical animals, in the mistaken belief that common ancestors would require flying pigs in order to have both pigs and robins today.[/quote]You are probably right. It's been a few years since I read "Darwin's Black Box", and I don't recall if the author ever claimed *when* or *how* the designer implemented the the design.

[quote]Perhaps a remedy for the Republican Party would be to clarify in the public's mind what evolution really says and where the disagreements happen. Just this would greatly improve the quality of the public debate. Much of the anti-evolution debate is presently analogous to claiming Christianity is wrong because the Easter Bunny cannot possibly color eggs, and reindeer cannot fly - the point being the attackers don't understand the things they are attacking.[/QUOTE]Trying to get the thread back on topic?

Am I remembering correctly that the (most recent) Republican candidates for President were asked if they believed in evolution and all (except maybe one) said they did?

[QUOTE=wblipp;173822]I'll admit to not following the disagreement closely in recent decades. But historically this has not been the major disagreement. Look at the Stokes trial - the issue there is whether man and apes had a common ancestor, not about the origin of that common ancestor. Originally this was about whether every species was a act of special creation. In decades past one of the primary anti-evolution arguments was the lack of transitional forms - again about speciation, not origin. This "lack of transitional forms" was often accompanied by arguments about the impossibility of chimerical animals, in the mistaken belief that common ancestors would require flying pigs in order to have both pigs and robins today.
[/QUOTE]
Did you mean to refer to the Scopes trial?

I am a very long way away, although I did read American history as an undergraduate. If you were referring to the Scopes trial, my understanding has been that at bottom the real issue was not so much whether man & apes had a common ancestor, but the separation of church and state.

Is Ida the missing link?
 

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-attenborough-missing-link[/url]

[QUOTE=garo;174212]Is Ida the missing link?[/QUOTE]It certainly is a palaeontologist's dream in terms of completeness and age, but I think the media campaign is over the top in its claims & hoopla. There's a documentary already, and a book in the works.

David Attenborough may have said this "little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals", but this [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm"]BBC article[/URL] has a lot of sceptical commentary from scientists outside the team, and even this from one of their own:
[QUOTE]Dr Jens Franzen, an expert on the Messel Pit and a member of the team, described Ida as "like the Eighth Wonder of the World", because of the extraordinary completeness of the skeleton.

It was information "palaeontologists can normally only dream of", he said.

In addition, Ida bears "a close resemblance to ourselves" he said, with nails instead of claws, a grasping hand and an opposable thumb - like humans and some other primates. But he said some aspects of the teeth indicate she is not a direct ancestor - more of an "aunt" than a "grandmother".

"She belongs to the group from which higher primates and human beings developed but my impression is she is not on the direct line."[/QUOTE]

Because I'm unusually busy with non-GIMPS issues (Yes, Virginia, there [I]is[/I] life beyond GIMPS) for a few days, this is going to be short:

[B]Please leave evolution/ID out of this thread.[/B] I tried carefully to avoid mentioning evolution/ID in my comments on anti-science, because that particular argument tends to take over the discussion when it comes up. Note that none of the examples of science suppression I cited from the UCS website concerns evolution/ID. My accusations of Republican anti-science do not depend upon referring to the evolution/ID controversy -- there are plenty of examples completely outside that area.

[B]There is another thread already established for arguing about the scientific aspects of evolution vs. ID argument[/B]: [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=6326[/URL] ("Evolution: The Scientific Evidence")

Please take the evolution/ID discussions (including about Ida) there.

[quote=Zeta-Flux;173681]I would also remind you of your first post, about your emotions. It seems to me that the number of !'s in your posts might be a sign that emotions are getting in the way a little.[/quote]Thank you. You're right.

[quote=Prime95;173460]Anyone with half a brain watching the economic collapse over the last 2 years knows that regulation is necessary.[/quote]

Therefore we get regulation designed by people with half a brain and supported by people with no brain.

There is no point in having financial regulation if it fails to detect 60,000,000,000.00 scams, and blaming the absence of regulation for financial troubles is delusional, if a society believes that the failure of markets to put people into houses they cannot afford is 'market failure' and therefore needs to be regulated.

Back on topic:

The Libertarian Party is still trying to herd cats, so there is not much to expect from there.

Currently, the Democratic party could probably split into fractions supporting "Christian Socialist Values" and "Socialist Christian Values", if the voter desires the illusion of choice.

BTW, if it were the Democratic party in trouble, the Republican Party would probably consider splitting into "Christian Nationalists" and "Nationalist Christians".

No. From what I can gather, both parties are migrating away from nationalism and Christianity.

Remedies for the Republican Party.
 

[QUOTE=axn;173466]Those who can change titles, can also change posts. Just sayin'.[/QUOTE]But that would never happen, right?
[color=#f5f5ff]Remedies for the Republican Party.
Remedies for the Republican Party.
Remedies for the Republican Party.[/color]

[QUOTE=__HRB__;174533]Currently, the Democratic party could probably split into fractions supporting "Christian Socialist Values" and "Socialist Christian Values", if the voter desires the illusion of choice.

BTW, if it were the Democratic party in trouble, the Republican Party would probably consider splitting into "Christian Nationalists" and "Nationalist Christians".[/QUOTE]Any likelihood of those disillusioned with both parties forming a new group? They could call themselves "National Socialists".

Paul