Potential McCain running mate Jindal "has everything McCain is lacking"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem with Intelligent Design is that in many ways, it isn't all that intelligent a design. Incompetent Design would be more like it. That's still ID.

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

[GaryC 7]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

I'm curious... since I have actually studied ID from an academic point of view... what holes do you think ID plugs in theory?

The kids can and should decide... just not in science class. There already is enough to discuss in science classes anyway.

[GaryC 7]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

I'm curious... since I have actually studied ID from an academic point of view... what holes do you think ID plugs in theory?

The kids can and should decide... just not in science class. There already is enough to discuss in science classes anyway.

Sometimes we have drastic changes in some species that seem to come out of nowhere. Some species don't seem to have a linage but just appear in the record. I am not an evolutionary scientist so I just don't know. But from what I have seen there are holes.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Mav, did you ever read or here about a scientist awhile ago who was interested in breeding a chimp and a human?

Edited June 2, 2008 by Jabberwocky

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

I'm curious... since I have actually studied ID from an academic point of view... what holes do you think ID plugs in theory?

The kids can and should decide... just not in science class. There already is enough to discuss in science classes anyway.

Sometimes we have drastic changes in some species that seem to come out of nowhere. Some species don't seem to have a linage but just appear in the record. I am not an evolutionary scientist so I just don't know. But from what I have seen there are holes.

Oh I see...

I see it this way... more of an Occam's Razor kind of thing. Some species in the fossil record show now direct lineage to other species in the fossil record (or today's living fossils) and the simple explanation can be that we have not been able to find more "intermediary" evidence of linkage. Again... this is without the benefit of modern genetic analysis.

This is why evolutionary biologists jump in joy when DNA can be recovered my miracle in most cases, from fossilized samples.

These drastic changes, then, are most likely nothing more than the lack of a record to show better linkage. These are holes. In the meantime evolutionary biologists tend to focus on characterizing similarities in structures (bones, shapes, feather imprints, bone density, etc). And the common conclusion is that the lineage of pretty much all species characterized to this day via the fossil record has been placed at some point of the grand evolutionary tree of this planet.

Modern species can be studied much easier due to DNA being readily available.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

this would put troll in a real quandrary.

The more of a Biblical kook he turns out to be, the less of a quandary I'll have.

what, you not gonna vote for a brother?

[GaryC 7]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

I'm curious... since I have actually studied ID from an academic point of view... what holes do you think ID plugs in theory?

The kids can and should decide... just not in science class. There already is enough to discuss in science classes anyway.

Sometimes we have drastic changes in some species that seem to come out of nowhere. Some species don't seem to have a linage but just appear in the record. I am not an evolutionary scientist so I just don't know. But from what I have seen there are holes.

Oh I see...

I see it this way... more of an Occam's Razor kind of thing. Some species in the fossil record show now direct lineage to other species in the fossil record (or today's living fossils) and the simple explanation can be that we have not been able to find more "intermediary" evidence of linkage. Again... this is without the benefit of modern genetic analysis.

This is why evolutionary biologists jump in joy when DNA can be recovered my miracle in most cases, from fossilized samples.

These drastic changes, then, are most likely nothing more than the lack of a record to show better linkage. These are holes. In the meantime evolutionary biologists tend to focus on characterizing similarities in structures (bones, shapes, feather imprints, bone density, etc). And the common conclusion is that the lineage of pretty much all species characterized to this day via the fossil record has been placed at some point of the grand evolutionary tree of this planet.

Modern species can be studied much easier due to DNA being readily available.

I can't disagree with any of that. Evolution clearly is the best explanation for the species on our planet. But it isn't complete yet. I am sure there are plenty of surprises yet to be found. I don't however have a problem with teaching ID in school as long as it is presented as a theory and not fact. After all, don't they still call evolution a theory?

[Sheriff Uling 3]

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

this would put troll in a real quandrary.

The more of a Biblical kook he turns out to be, the less of a quandary I'll have.

what, you not gonna vote for a brother?

Evolution-creationism is one of my litmus tests.

[HAL 9000 96]

Your personal idea could be right, Gary. Who are we to prove or disprove a divine hand in known science? There's no way of knowing.

However, ID is something quite different and has no place in a Science classroom. It is not science and its add-on to common evolutionary theory is propelled by wealthy religious fanatics that can't grasp evolutionary concepts beyond Charles Darwin's TV appearances back in the 19th century.

Frankly its just an attempt to unite science and religion in two disciplines that need not be at odds, nor should they be necessarily together.

Just to be clear, I know that evolution is real. However, ID addresses some of the holes in that theory where humans are concerned. As you may know, when a animal evolves it's family tree branches. That is why we have so many kinds of cats, dogs, fish or any other animal you can name. Humans are the one species whose linage does not branch. Now I cannot explain that nor has any scientist that I have heard of. I am also not suggesting that God did this. But until we know for sure, any theory has as much validity as any other, right? Unless your rejecting the whole concept of God (I know that some do) then it is possible.

Molecular biology (genetics) disagrees with your observation of ** sapiens.

FYI-

The genetic makeup between humans and chimpanzees is nearly 98% identical. Humans are on a branch of an evolutionary tree- it just goes much farther back in common within our lineage (**, Hominids) and our cousin species (Primates, like us), and even farther back to our Mammalian distant cousins. Hence we are a branch of the tree.

This is why we can have xenographs between species in medicine in some cases. The genetic similarities code for extremely similar proteins that in turn behave in extremely similar mechanisms.

Some of these genes are 'conserved' in structure (of the proteins they encode) and in sequence even to the level of Protozoans (single-celled eukaryotic organisms like amoebae).

Yes, I understand that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and we are a branch of the primate family. However, the species of humans does not branch. The other primate species do branch but ours does not.

They are evolutionary end points on their branches just as we are. Whether or not we are still in the process of evolution is up to [?] to decide...

As I pointed out- our genetic similarity to other primate species is proof enough that we ourselves are hairless monkeys.

J/K That small difference packs quite a punch.

I don't know about you but I am pretty hairy.

But the concept of ID does fill in some of the holes. I don't agree with it but there are some things about evolution that are not explained yet. What is the harm if it is presented as a theory and not fact? Let the kids make up their own minds. Give them enough credit to decide for themselves.

I'm curious... since I have actually studied ID from an academic point of view... what holes do you think ID plugs in theory?

The kids can and should decide... just not in science class. There already is enough to discuss in science classes anyway.

Sometimes we have drastic changes in some species that seem to come out of nowhere. Some species don't seem to have a linage but just appear in the record. I am not an evolutionary scientist so I just don't know. But from what I have seen there are holes.

Oh I see...

I see it this way... more of an Occam's Razor kind of thing. Some species in the fossil record show now direct lineage to other species in the fossil record (or today's living fossils) and the simple explanation can be that we have not been able to find more "intermediary" evidence of linkage. Again... this is without the benefit of modern genetic analysis.

This is why evolutionary biologists jump in joy when DNA can be recovered my miracle in most cases, from fossilized samples.

These drastic changes, then, are most likely nothing more than the lack of a record to show better linkage. These are holes. In the meantime evolutionary biologists tend to focus on characterizing similarities in structures (bones, shapes, feather imprints, bone density, etc). And the common conclusion is that the lineage of pretty much all species characterized to this day via the fossil record has been placed at some point of the grand evolutionary tree of this planet.

Modern species can be studied much easier due to DNA being readily available.

I can't disagree with any of that. Evolution clearly is the best explanation for the species on our planet. But it isn't complete yet. I am sure there are plenty of surprises yet to be found. I don't however have a problem with teaching ID in school as long as it is presented as a theory and not fact. After all, don't they still call evolution a theory?

They sure do. Theory is evidence-based. ID is not evidence-based and, although can be taught outside of the science curriculum, it is up to each individual student to learn about science on one side and what *could* be one way to interpret it all in another side.

My simple interpretation is that ID proponents base their belief as a religious one out of sheer awe at the complexity and beauty of the world and its inhabitants while disregarding the common links between 100% of all of [God's] creatures, that have actual evidence to boot.

Problem is that (to bring the topic back into the fold) you have socially conservative politicians for the most part (and some on the other end of the spectrum as well) championing the ID cause as an alternative to science that is frankly, even more unscientific than even a class in religion.

Edited June 2, 2008 by maviwaro

[jundp 191]

They can write in David Duke.

Oh man, hasn't he tried enough already?!?!

this would put troll in a real quandrary.

The more of a Biblical kook he turns out to be, the less of a quandary I'll have.

I really don't think Jindal is a Biblical kook. He did an amazing amount of good for Louisiana over the last 15 years or so (maybe a bit less, but he's been in LA government for a very very long time). Just because he is anti-abortion and anti-stem cell research doesn't mean he's a kook. It means he's true to his faith. He does support contraceptive methods (the morning after pill or whatever) in cases of rape and incest and he also supports necessary medical procedures that may result in abortion if it's meant to save the mother's life.

The NYT:

He is a born-again Roman Catholic who has suggested that teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools, favors a ban on abortion and opposes hate-crimes laws.

oh, he sounds like a throw back.....

No kidding. Geez, what kind of Catholics got a hold of him in HS? My freshman HS religion teacher, Mr. Ribiki, was the one who taught me that story of Creation in the Bible is just that, a story....not meant to be taken as historical fact.

I've known of Jindal since I was in high school (he graduated a year before me with some of my friends, but we're the same age) and he converted to Catholicism. He beleves that both Intelligent Design and evolution should be taught. We teach both in my school and we learned about it in college....a public college.

At least Jindal stands firm in what he believes. He also votes consistently on issues. He's proven to be a good and effective leader and helped Louisiana get out of some of its deeply dug holes. McCain could do far worse.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

My, lots of debate generated about someone who actually will NOT be chosen (as he violates the unwritten rule of being less impressive than the POTUS candidate) for VPOTUS candidate.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

He beleves that both Intelligent Design and evolution should be taught.

Then he is a kook.