Dear Dan,

Whether von Braun was a war criminal or not evolution has absolutely nothing to do with rocket science so he can have whatever crank ideas he has in that area without it affecting his rocketry competence. It really doesn't matter and is irrelevant. It is no more significant than a sculptor being a Creationist.

Please cite your Vatican astronomer priests who are creationists and what their role is in astronomy. If you are dealing with the theory of the development of the universe it is accepted that the sun came into being before the earth. That is incompatible with a literal belief in genesis with its six day creation and the creation of the sun, moon and stars on the fourth day of creation after he had created earth and plant life.

Dear Banjo,

I cannot get you out of the problems with 'observer dependence.' I just took issue with the statement by Oliver that in science the observer is independent of the object. The problems that observer dependence involve are still a matter of dispute. One thing science does not deal with are phenomena which we do not have tools to detect and which we cannot show have an effect on the experiments and observations. As long as Jane was in a hide there was no detectable influence of her on the apes. When interacting with the apes in touching them or handing them food there was an affect on the apes' minds. That is somewhat observable as they would recognise her. My son's presence with the Xikrin and the Canela, the Amazonian peoples he worked with, has affected them. They can tell him about their feelings toward him, but he cannot read their minds. He is very blond and very hairy This is unlike the Amazonian Indians but like a monkey that lives in the area of the Xikrin so they call him by the same name that they call the monkey. That may tell a bit about their feelings toward him.

.

Dear David F.,

.

Thanks for the explanation. That's quite clear.

.

i asked oliver..to decribe..in his own words

here is how he explains his link...quote...<<Of course,..pertaining to the definition,..it is a classification system.>>>the link is not a clasification system

its a proposal..to declare a find/discovered in an old mine...re some virus..that has been tested..and found to have 25 percent divergebnt aminoacids..and other rna/dna..bits..that would make it a new genus

IE...ITS NOT THE RESULT OF EVOLUTION>>>INTO NEW GENUS

get it?

but you waffle on more /with redirection..
IN LUE OF FAULSIFYABLE..or explaining/in your own words...just what the link is saying

<<As I have said before,..its like defining Pluto,..as planet or a planetoid.>>>when clearly he is another/family...genus/species..alltogether..ie/he is a/cartoon/dog..

but lets go your joke..<<agree on the delimiters based on tentative knowledge of the time..It does not follow that they "created" Pluto.

Put another way, you probably would not call your cat "Spot" and your dog "Felix".

There is a convention.

The author has written an extensive methodology section which would be opened to critique by peers.

The paper has seemingly already passed desk review.>>>great

a new discovery is discoverd..not bred via ya theory!

NOW IN YOUR OWN WORDS..please explain..
what you think the link is saying

or..provide/..evolution of genus/s...FAULSIFYABLES

but you aint got that
thus talk about pluto

OUG,

The claimed new genus has been classified on the basis of its divergence using means known/accepted by biologists. The authors triangulate a series/threads of analyses to drve home their argument.

Pluto is what is it, whether we call it a planet or something else. No matter how it is classified, Pluto formed out of the same reminants of an earlier star stysem as to did the Sun, the Earth, you and I.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html

Likewise, the classification system used to "label" a genus stands apart, from Hongia gen. nov., which evolved. Even very Christians believe that a god somehow "zapped" each individual genus. No matter how it is clasified, Hongia gen. nov., evolved from an earlier form.

Calling something a genus, Hongia gen. nov., based on biological parameters is no different than calling a colour, yellow, based on physical parameters (eletromagnetic spectrum).

OHliver...i have/simplified..the/con-tent..of ya link...

so even you can see/it is nothing/but a re-clasification...NOT NEW EVOLUTION..only a clean-up...from some previous scientists/stuff-up

QUOTE..<<..An aerobic,..nocardioform actinomycete,/named LM 161T,..was isolated from a/soil sample/..obtained from a gold-mine in Kongiu,..Republic of Korea.

This organism formed well-differentiated aerial and substrate mycelia/and/produced branched hyphae/that fragmented into short or elongated rods....edited

...The phylogenetic position/of the test strain..was investigated using/an almost complete 16S rDNA sequence.

The isolate formed the deepest/branch in the clade encompassing..the members of the suborder/Propionibacterineae Rainey.../On the basis of chemical,phenotypic..and genealogical data,/

it is proposed that this/..isolate be classified/>>>RE_CLASIFIED..

<<<within a...new genus..as Hongia koreensis gen.nov.,sp.nov...in the order/Actinomycetales.

The type strain is LM 161T(¯IMSNU 50530T)>>...EDITED

<<Recently,/the phylogenetic relationship/between members of the family Nocardioidaceae/and related taxa..was re-evaluated on the basis of 16S/rDNA sequence...comparisons(Yoon et/al.,1998).

In addition, the following ll-DAP-containing actinomycetegenera,/which belong to other phylogenetic
lineages (Stackebrandt et al., 1997),have been/described:

The members of the suborder/Propionibacterineae..are readily differentiated from/each other/>>NOW>><<<and from the other ll-DAP-containing/genera/mentioned above..by a combination of morphological,physiological/and chemotaxonomic/properties

During the taxonomic study/of soil actinomycetes/..from natural environments,..strain LM 161T (T¯type-strain)/was isolated from a gold-mine cave in Kongju,Republic of Korea.

Strain LM 161T contained ll-DAP/as the diagnostic diamino acid in the peptidoglycan,and the substrate-/and aerial mycelia showed/a tendency to fragment.

In this work,/we have determined..the taxonomic and phylogenetic position of..the isolate..by examining its morphological,physiological/and chemotaxonomic properties and by analysing..its 16S rDNA.

Our results indicate that the/..isolate should be placed in a new species...>>>LOL..GET IT SPECIES...lol,..not genus/..genious

<<..of a novel/genus,..for which the name Hongia koreensis is/proposed...Strain LM 161T..>>ie....RE-CLASIFICATION>..NOT EVOLUTION

ALSO...please present...FAULSIFYABLES
BAD LUCK..SUN-SHINE...

nice try...lol

OUG,

That is what I said they classified the genus as “new”.

All,

The idea of the experimenter being part of the experiment means that Jane would not normally be present in the wild. She is an extraneous variable in the environment, herself, that is, the locus of the study. It does not mean that apes might her or smell her. The “natural” experimental situation, under study, would not normally include the presence of a primatologist. This happens at a “macro” level and is something very different to observation in QM.

Notwithstanding the above, observation in science requires detachment. Detachment requires a syntactical device similar to subject and predicate. With regards religion the practitioner can be en-circled and dwell within a performance (Polanyi) and loose that sense of detachment.

I guess if one tries to have it both ways, we have left with (theoretical) contamination.