millions of years?

I think I can cover that one,
environment is irrelevant..squirrels don't vary..some squirrels reproduce faster than others but they are all still squirrels..to say other makes you a fascist like Konrad Lorenz

Doh!!! That actually DID make me LOL!!!!!!

the relationship among squirrels for those interested taken fromMercer JM, Roth VL. Related Articles, Links
The effects of Cenozoic global change on squirrel phylogeny.
Science. 2003 Mar 7;299(5612):1568-72. Epub 2003 Feb 20.
Click for enlarged image[Reduced image size. --Admin][This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 07-09-2003][This message has been edited by Admin, 07-10-2003]

I've not heard of grey and red squirrels hybridising and I suspect that it doesn't happen. I owuld suspect that the most likely explanation is that the greys are so aggressive that the reds tend to move out, although competition for resources may also be a factor (squirrels are so common I have no difficulty in believing that their numbers approach the carrying capacity of their environment).Another fact that may be significant is that the red squirrel population has had a history of fluctuations. Perhaps the greys often moved into an area with a depleted - or no - population of red squirrels and act as a significant barrier to recolonisation or reestablishment fo the population.

I was sitting on a bench in central park reading a book once when I felt something tap me on the leg and I looked down and a grey squirrel had its paw on my leg and was balancing on me and looking up at me to see if I had food. It stood there for a minute and then ran off...a little while later a black squirrel did the same thing...ah well, that New York attitude extends to the fauna

If it's not too much of a problem, I'd like point out a flaw in Mike's thinking very early on in this thread.He said:
"[...] i just think its far more likely we have been around for thousands of years and been given the requirements to survive.
i think we came equipped in other words."How does being equipped relate to how long we've been around? Supposing we were equipped (by an intelligence or some divine entity, that is) , why can't we have been around for hundreds of thousands of years instead of just six thousand? After all, being equipped supposedly enhances our ability to survive, doesn't it? It's almost as if Mike is saying that it's unlikely that we could survive very long periods at all, whether equipped or not.[This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 07-30-2003]

Maybe it's the definition of God that's the problem...an all perfect creator - or - a creative presence or principle that is at the foundation of the universe and life as we know it.As you say, if it were a perfect creator, it leaves something to be desired. However, if what we call God is some kind of creative principle or presence that we don't understand yet..well that could be possible...unless there is some science that removes that as an option....it seems some scientists have done that ...by using science or is that a kind of belief that is more like religion???It is hard to believe that the extraordinary rise in complexity in living organisms despite a number of extinction events, is the result of accident after accident after accident... it seems easier to beleive that there is a directional creative presence that responds to conditions using the mechanism of evolution -reproducing variations of possible adaptations and selecting those that work best - that we are just now discovering.Like...humans accidentally discovered that burned animals are good to eat..also discovered that natural gas is flammable..probably by accident...It was intelligent design -the human mind using an evolutioanary process applied to ideas - that produced a gas range in response to these discoveries but not with the gas range as it's final objective..there is no final objective...could it be that is the way we are created in the image and likeness of God?[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-30-2003][This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-30-2003]

Personally I find it harder to believe that it
was all set in motion by a god ... so much for
personal, unsupported opinion.I try not the let that influence me too much when I
look at data though -- I know it will at some point, but
I try to be on guard (someone else will usually spot it
any how).

quote:

---

It is hard to believe that the extraordinary rise in complexity in living organisms despite a number of extinction events, is the result of accident after accident after accident... it seems easier to beleive that there is a directional creative presence that responds to conditions using the mechanism of evolution -reproducing variations of possible adaptations and selecting those that work best - that we are just now discovering.

---

Do you even listen to yourself? In stating that there is a 'directional creative presence' that uses evolution, you are overlooking the fact that the horrible reality of evolution is what makes us conclude that there is no such creative force guiding it.If evolution progressed in a systematic, efficient fashion, I might be inclined to agree with you. However, the reality of natural selection is amoral, haphazard, and above all else, wasteful. Your 'directional creative presence' increases the fitness and complexity of life forms at an excruciatingly slow pace, at the harrowing cost of the issueless death of the vast majority of its creations and the eventual extinction of virtually all its species.I'm sorry that it's hard for you to believe that life's diversity and mind-boggling complexity is the product of purposeless processes. How unfortunate that you seem only too willing to believe that a guiding purpose is necessary for natural events when there is every reason to believe otherwise.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Hi Parasomnium, The answer is simple. We have to try and put ourselves in Mike's shoes, see things from his point of view.His thinking on this issue has absolutely nothing to do with reality, it is based purely on biblical chronologies. Chronologies that contradict themselves and have been proven to be artificial, schematic chronologies for example. Science and factual evidence are not a factor in this worldview, if the Bible says that the Universe and the Earth are only 6000 years old then that's it, nothing else matters.Sure he can say he is interested in the truth and he is trying to understand, however, his brain would implode if he acknowledge that the Bible was incorrect about something as fundamental as this. (My apologies Mike, this doesn't just apply to you, it applies to all YEC's)I have tried, many times, to imagine that I was a Young Earther just as a debating exercise, and I truly cannot find ANY argument outside of the Bible for a 6000 year old Earth.This is the argument, we cannot have been around for hundreds of thousands of years because, according to the Bible, God didn't create the Universe and everything in it until 23rd of october, 4004 BCE, I believe it was a Thursday!It is very sad that in this day and age we have people who are so indoctrinated that they will not, or maybe cannot, accept things which are proven beyond all doubt just because it disagrees with what they want to be true.It is also an insult to the many thousands of scientists who have devoted their lives to furthering human knowledge of the world around them.Finally, I would say, from personal experience, that the young earth psychosis is predominantly an American phenomenon, I haven't found that many Christians in the UK who stick to Bishop Ussher's dates. Of course I havent spoken to every Christian in the UK, but I have spoken to literally hundreds who all laugh at the suggestion of a young Earth. They in turn have informed me that they do not know anyone who would be silly enough to believe that, so we are talking about a fair number of people.Brian.

Well, let me check..I made some sounds and I was listening to myself...so the answer is yes. I also just scratched my arm and killed a number of skin cells that have some kind of survival instinct..but, even though they may resist that experience, I have access to a bigger picture and their death does not bother me. I know that the birth and death of cells is absolutely necessary to my life as a human.The creation of ever new and expanding relationships of mutual enhancement may be the purpose for life. For that purpose to be fulfilled through an ongoing, unfolding act of creation, birth and death are essential. That's not bad from a bigger picture. Life feeds on itself in order to continue its creative activity.Without death, life would become stagnant in terms of it's capacity for new connections of mutual enhancement with other forms of life and with the environment.Human consciousness is likely a product of evolution... It responds to the sometimes random conditions it experiences in a directional way, organizing, refining and connecting materials and ideas in relationships in which they work together...like my previous post regarding cooking, burned animals, natural gas and the eventual creation of the gas range. Because the progress in the use of fire by human beings didn't happen in a perfectly ordered, steady fashion does that mean that intelligent, directional design is absolutely missing from process that led to the stove?Given the way human beings use natural selection in the development of ideas into ever more complex technologies,for instance, why would it be good science to absolutely say that intelligent design cannot be present in the evolution of life on our planet.A question I asked Stephen J. Gould(spelling?) was: "If there was a designing or creative presence in the universe, do you think a species who has evolved just an instant ago(in the15 billion year old universe)would be able to identify it and say exactly what it's nature is or isn't?? His answer was "Probably not." Then I asked, "Why, then, has the absence of a designing or creative presence become a component of what is thought to be "good science"? He answered, "Point well taken." Meaning, I think, that taking the position that intelligent or directional design is missing "as truth" is not good science!Barry

quote:

---

Without death, life would become stagnant in terms of it's capacity for new connections of mutual enhancement with other forms of life and with the environment.

---

Oh. Kay.

quote:

---

Given the way human beings use natural selection in the development of ideas into ever more complex technologies,for instance, why would it be good science to absolutely say that intelligent design cannot be present in the evolution of life on our planet.

---

Because 'good science' depends on empircal evidential inference. What evidence do we have that it is either possible or verifiable that there is intelligence behind evolution in the same way that there is intelligence behind the human design of stoves?

quote:

---

A question I asked Stephen J. Gould(spelling?) was: "If there was a designing or creative presence in the universe, do you think a species who has evolved just an instant ago(in the15 billion year old universe)would be able to identify it and say exactly what it's nature is or isn't?? His answer was "Probably not." Then I asked, "Why, then, has the absence of a designing or creative presence become a component of what is thought to be "good science"? He answered, "Point well taken."

---

I too would answer the first question 'no.' Why is the next question the one you asked instead of "What, then, would be the point of assuming that there is such a designing or creative presence behind nature?" If something may or may not exist that we may or may not be able to verify or understand, what is your rationale for including it in scientific inquiry?

quote:

---

Meaning, I think, that taking the position that intelligent or directional design is missing "as truth" is not good science!

---

We'll provisionally accept that position as 'truth' until there's a reason to believe that science can benefit from assuming that there is intelligence behind natural events. New-age philosophy (ahem) might make you feel good, but it's not based in the same empirical inquiry as science.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Quote
Because 'good science' depends on empircal evidential inference. What evidence do we have that it is either possible or verifiable that there is intelligence behind evolution in the same way that there is intelligence behind the human design of stoves?No more than you have that a universal creative principle doesn't exist, that it won't sometime be found and who says that in the future it couldn't be verifiable!The fact that designing intelligence in human beings emerged as a product of evolution is certainly not proof that there is any such designing intelligence underlying evolution or the existance of this universe. But, the fact that it is present at all in life and that it works in creating more varied and complex ways for life forms, ideas and matter to relate to each other, I think should make anyone with an open and inquiring mind open to considering that it's source could be in some greater or more universal designing or creative principle or intelligence. Nothing that I've written claims proof of any designing intelligence - I don't claim proof of it even though I do practice a personal kind of belief in it.My position is that scientists (and religionists) who want to feel secure (good) about all they know seem to arrive at and defend metaphysical conclusions that are extraordinarily premature in terms of human inquiry and understanding of the universe. I think mostly it's a need to feel secure in some position that they have become entrenched in. For me it's easier to understand why religionists would to that than it is to understand why scientific people would do that.Unless, of course, if science has now completed the understanding of the Universe, of the dark matter that seems to make up most of it; the full understanding of quantum physics, gravity, the phenomena of life that seems to defy the second law,etc. etc. With all of that understanding and knowledge now complete I can see how a metaphysical conclussion about the presence or non-presence of any universal designing principle should be possible.I'm sorry but I think the scientists who frantically defend their metaphysical conclussions are the ones practicing feel good science!My point is that open mindedness is the only true scientific or spiritual position that can be taken at this point in the evolution of human consciousness. Personally, I try some specific spiritual approaches that are based on the idea that there is some underlying presence that seeks to be expressed in my life as increased meaning satisfaction and peace, and I measure the results of those experiments in my life.....using a kind of natural selection applied to my thoughts, ideas, attitudes and beliefs.I think the problem is that religionists attempt to push their immature metaphysical conclussions on people and sometimes do so in ways that oppose good science and many scientists have emotionally charge defensive reactions to that..that's understandable but, it's not good science!
Barry[This message has been edited by Barryven, 07-30-2003]

You have every right to believe whatever you want to believe, on whatever basis you choose. Your assertion that there is no evidence that there is NOT a creative intelligence behind evolution is just as valid and relevant as saying that there is no proof that there is NOT an invisible person in this room.You're confusing philosophical questions about meaning and purpose with natural phenomena. Can I declare that there is no metaphysical purpose behind, say, chemical reactions? No. However, is there any benefit to assuming that there is in fact a purpose behind them?Methodological constraints are placed on scientists because we don't want them arriving at conclusions that can't be repeated or confirmed. If a scientist claims that there are relevant variables in an experiment that cannot be verified or even detected, what conceivable worth do his findings have?Like it or not, this is good science: we assume the regularity of physical laws and the intervention of only forces that can be detected and verified. If you disregard these assumptions, you are not practicing science.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

mike Evolution Is all Chance! ok I will explain somewhat here... its not "survival of the Fittest" like many say. its more Luck ok. 65 Million years Ago A Massive extinction took place(not as big as the one that brought on the Dinosaurs but still huge!) This allowed the Tiny Rodent sized mammals a chance to rule. Although Mammals and Dinosaurs(not reptiles) Evolved Around the same time. It was Dinosaurs that took over the Planet. for 160 Million Years Mammals Remained tiny rodent sized Animals Under the feet of Dinosaurs. when Dinosaurs where wiped out(all except a flying species). Mammals Survived. No one knows exactly why.. but it was chance. small Dinosaur species could have very well survived but didn't! and these tiny Mammals gave rise to all Mammals you see today Including you! Mike I recommend a show Called "the future is Wild" its on Animal Planet alot. Although all the creatures are speculation and fake. it Explains very well how it can happen. The End the best at 200 million years in the Future Squids ruled the land! All life on Land was wiped out so squids made the way on land to "replace" them in a way. you should watch it.
..................................
Human Interbreeding
.....................................................
and guys About Human interbreeding. there was a skeleton Found that suggests Humans interbred with Neanderthals(which are not an ancestor but another branch of the Family tree of Hominids)