DarwinPropertyInsight.com

Natural selection, or mutation causes evolution.
***During chemical reactions, bonds between atoms break and form resulting in differerent substances with different properties.

Do we assume you are very young and trying to look clever?

There is no link between the two at all as they are both entirely different processes!

Glen Ross Vacation Property Sales employs seven salespeople as follows:
Salespeople

ID Number—Name

103—Darwin

104—Kratz

201—Shulstad

319—Fortune

367—Wickert

388—Miller

435—Vick

When a salesperson makes a sale, a record is created including the date, time, and dollar amount of the sale. The time is expressed in hours and minutes, based on a 24-hour clock. The sale amount is expressed in whole dollars. Design a Sale class that contains a sale’s data.
3 years ago Report Abuse
Additional Details
Salespeople earn a commission that differs for each sale, based on the following rate schedule:
Commission Rates

Sale Amount— Rate

$0 – 50,000—.04

$51,000 – 125,000—.04

$126,000 – 200,000—.04

$201,000 and up— .04

Design an application that produces each of the following reports:

A report listing each salesperson number, name, total sales, and total commissions
A report listing each month of the year as both a number and a word (for example, "01 January") and the total sales for the month for all salespeople
A report listing total sales as well as total commissions earned by all salespeople for each of the following time frames, based on hour of the day: 00-05, 06-12, 13-18, and 19-23.

You should do your own homework instead of asking the internet to do it for you…

I have repeatedly seen creationists here on Y!A falsely malign Darwin by saying that he was a racist and that he thought Blacks are subhuman.

Those malignings are false because Darwin was actually more enlightened about race than most others were at that time. Furthermore, he did not consider Blacks to be subhuman and he abhorred the enslavement of Blacks in contrast to many Christians of the time.

Three questions that I asked concerning those false malignings were deleted, apparently by a creationist who was tracking me. This creationist apparently did not like it that I exposed those false malignings for what they were.

So, again, do creationists think it is okay to falsely malign Darwin in their attempts to refute evolution?

For those who would like to know, the following is the information I provided to show that Darwin was not a racist and that he did not consider Blacks to be subhuman (and I’m sorry this is so long):

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the differences in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical or mental similarity to apes.

The fact is that many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored."

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html
@In the beginning God created evolution.: "I, for one, give Darwin full credit for his observation. I just don’t completely buy it. Too many holes to call it a scientific fact. It’s a theory, an observation, not a proven fact."

Unfortunately, you use the same false argument about the word theory that creationists use. See my answer here.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013170944AAT3Ann&r=w#B5BNXHbANVD4FuV46MSV

There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution. Please do some more research on the matter before repeating what you said.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101122101832AA6QTQm

@geessewereabove, you are repeating typical creationist falsehoods about scientific theories. Please see my added comment above.

Furthermore you made this statement: "When I was in school we were taught that ALL came to be in Six billion years, now they are falsely teaching that All is trillions of years old,"

That trillions of years old claim is nothing but utter nonsense. The evidence is that the universe is approximately 13.7 billion years old. Your other statements are taken directly from some lying creationist web site.
And the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.
Also, you did not answer my question. Since you are the only creationist so far who answered, do you think that it is okay for creationists to falsely malign Darwin by saying he was a racist and that he considered Blacks to be subhuman?

Certain people seem to think that lying for jesus is ok.

when they attempt to refute evolution by maligning Darwin, calling him a racist and that he thought blacks were subhuman.

In fact, Darwin was more enlightened about race than many Christians of his time were.

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man (and I’m sorry this is so long, but the following information is necessary for an understanding of the question):

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the differences in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical or mental similarity to apes.

The fact is that many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored."

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html

So, why are creationists so despicable in their attempts to refute evolution by maligning Darwin?
@motivational_raven, I see that argument quite frequently here on Y!A.
@No Chance Without Jesus, you have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites. There is a massive amount of evidence for evolution and none that prohibits it.

If you doubt me on that, perhaps you should take a look at what CREATIONIST Todd C. Wood, a Research/Associate Professor of Science at the Christian-based Bryon College, says about evolution.

See my answer here.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110115082445AAkVXcl&cp=2
And @No Chance, I am glad you admit that you are despicable.

And you creationists have not refuted evolution. Bald-faced lies don’t count.

It’s because of their fundamentally different approach to knowledge. Creationists tend to place more weight on authority (hence believing the biblical account over the available evidence and even insisting upon using the biblical account to filter what available evidence science should accept or reject or using it to dictate how ambiguous evidence should be interpreted). Science, on the other hand, places emphasis on the facts and consistency, thus evidence is collected and facts are accumulated and models (or theories) are constructed which fit all of the assembled facts together most consistently.

This emphasis on authority is why creationists tend to malign Darwin in an attempt to discredit evolution. After all if anyone could absolutely disprove god they would absolutely disprove creationism, by this reasoning shouldn’t a creationist be able to disprove evolution by discrediting Darwin? Of course it’s specifically because of the fundamentally different approaches to knowledge that this situation is not reciprocal, but creationists, for the most part, appear to be unaware of this fact.

when they attempt to refute evolution by maligning Darwin, calling him a racist and that he thought blacks were subhuman.

In fact, Darwin was more enlightened about race than many Christians of his time were.

Here is what Darwin said about the races in his Descent of Man:

"Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, … yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are … unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. …I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded n e g r o with whom I happened once to be intimate."

Does that sound like someone who believed that blacks are subhuman?

Ignoring the above quote, creationists often refer to the following, which actually follows that quote:

"…At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the n e g r o or Australian and the gorilla."

The creationists frequently say that Darwin was advocating the extermination of blacks, but, in fact, he was just making an observation of what happens when the so-called "civilized" peoples meet up with the less civilized. And, considering that Darwin had said the similarities in intellect between whites and other races were insignificant, his remark about the separation between the N e g r o or Australian and the gorilla was certainly referring to the primitive way they were living in the wild in contrast to that of those who lived in a "civilized state," rather than to any perceived physical similarity to apes.

The fact is that at that time many Christians at that time believed blacks to be subhuman or intellectually deficient, and they used that belief, along with the Bible, to justify their enslavement.

The following shows Darwin’s attitude towards the enslavement of blacks in contrast with the Christian norm of the time.

"While strolling about the town Darwin was disgusted at the sight of black slaves, and upon returning to the Beagle he got into a big quarrel with Capt. FitzRoy about the ethics of treating humans as property. FitzRoy [who was a devout Christian] flew into a temper and forbid Darwin to share his dinner table with him ever again. After a short cooling off period Capt. FitzRoy apologized to Darwin and his privilege to dine with him was restored.

The following is Darwin’s account of the incident.

" ‘We had several quarrels; for when out of temper he [FitzRoy] was utterly unreasonable. For instance, early in the voyage at Bahia in Brazil he defended and praised slavery, which I abominated, and told me that he just visited a great slave-owner, who had called up many of his slaves and asked them whether they were happy, and whether they wished to be free, and all answered ‘No.’ I then asked him, perhaps with a sneer, whether he thought that the answers of slaves in the presence of their master was worth anything. This made him excessively angry …’"
— Charles Darwin [11]
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/voyage/voyage04.html

So, why are creationists so despicable in their attempts to refute evolution by maligning Darwin?

Sorry this is so long, but the above information is necessary for an understanding of the question.
@Arc: "I wonder why – if Darwin really believed all this – he repented at the end of his life and became a Christian?"

That is just another creationist fabrication! You need to stop believing what you read in lying creationist web sites and books.
@Eric Hayes, so the despicable maligning of Darwin should just be ignored so that more gullible people will be taken in by it and keep repeating it here on Y!A.

And I note that you did not condemn that tactic. Says a lot about you!

Demonizing Darwin is just the tip of the iceberg regarding their misinformation and misunderstandings of anything to do with evolution. I have yet to have a discussion with any creationist that had any knowledge about even simple biology.

As a Christian, I find their views to be more destructive than anything any atheist could possibly come up with. They make us all look hopelessly ignorant, even though evolution is taught, as science, in all Catholic and other mainstream Christian private schools. Evolution IS "the divine design". Why do they think they can convince atheists that there is a God, when they DENY the very evidence of our "Designer" (aka evolution). It’s absurd.

Case in point: "ARC" — Darwin never "recanted". This was a lie propagated by a person who claimed to be a friend and was never in fact anywhere near him. His family refuted this outright lie, but it persists b/c creationists have very little else to go on besides lies.

I lost my textbook and I need help on some questions! Please do not assume I am just using this for answers. I am using this as a reference until I buy another textbook.

1.All the organisms on our campus make up
a.An ecosystem
b.A community
c.A population
d.An experimental group
e.A taxonomic domain

2.Which of the following is a correct sequence of levels in life’s hierarchy, proceeding downward from an individual animal?
a.Brain, organ system, nerve cell, nervous tissue
b.Organ system, nervous tissue, brain
c.Organism, organ system, tissue, cell, organ
d.Organ system, tissue, molecule, cell

3.Which of the following is not an observation or inference on which Darwin’s theory of natural selection is based?
a.Poorly adapted individuals can not produce offspring
b.There is heritable variation among individuals
c.Because of overproduction of offspring, there is competition for limited resources
d.Individuals whose inherited characteristics best fit them to the environment will generally produce more offspring
e.A population can become adapted to its environment

4.Systems biology is mainly an attempt to
a.Understand the integration of all levels of biological organization from molecules to the biosphere
b.Simplify complex problems by reducing the system into smaller, less complex units
c.Construct models of the behavior of entire biological systems
d.Build high-throughput machines for the rapid acquisition of biological data
e.Speed up the technological application of scientific knowledge

5.Protists and bacteria are grouped into different domains because
a.Protists eat bacteria
b.Bacteria are not made of cells
c.Protists have a membrane-bounded nucleus, which bacterial cells lack
d.Bacteria decompose protists
e.Protists are photosynthetic

6.Which of the following best demonstrates the unity among all organisms?
a.Requirement for sunlight
b.Descent with modification
c.The structure and function of DNA
d.Natural selection
e.Emergent properties

7.Which of the following is an example of qualitative data?
a.The temperature decreased from 20°C to 15°C
b.The plant’s height is 25 centimeters
c.The fish swam in a zig-zag motion
d.The six pairs of robins hatched an average of three chicks
e.The contents of the stomach are mixed every 20 seconds

8.Which of the following best describes the logic of hypothesis-based science?
a.If I generate a testable hypothesis, tests and observations will support it
b.If my prediction is correct, it will lead to a testable hypothesis
c.If my observations are accurate, they will support my hypothesis
d.If my hypothesis is correct, I can predict certain test results
e.If my experiments are set up right, they will lead to a testable hypothesis

9.A controlled experiment is one that
a.Proceeds slowly enough that a scientist can make careful records of the results
b.Includes experimental groups and control groups tested in parallel
c.Is repeated many times to make sure the results are accurate
d.Keeps all environmental variables constant
e.Is supervised by an experienced scientist

10.Which of the following statements best distinguishes hypotheses from theories in science?
a.Theories are hypotheses that have been proved
b.Hypotheses are guesses; theories are correct answers
c.Hypotheses are relatively narrow in scope; theories have broad explanatory power
d.Hypotheses and theories are essentially the same thing
e.Theories are proved true in all cases; hypotheses are usually falsified by tests

1.a community
2.nervous system, brain, nervous tissue, nerve cell
3.Poorly adapted individuals never produce offspring
4.construct models of the behavior of entire biological systems.
5.protists have a membrane-bounded nucleus, which bacterial cells lack.
6.the structure and function of DNA
7.The fish swam in a zig-zag motion
8.If my hypothesis is correct, I can expect certain test results
9.may include experimental groups and control groups tested in parallel.
10.Hypotheses usually are relatively narrow in scope; theories have broad explanatory power

.

Suppose a scientist conducts an experiment where he measures how much salt will dissolve in a glass of water. Does the amount of salt depend on Gods mood at the time of the experiment or does it depend on the chemical properties of water and salt?

For science to work and be effective, it must assume that the latter explanation is always correct. Thus, science assumes that the atheists are correct. And this assumption is not by choice but rather by necessity. Without this assumption science just does not work.

Most of the time, this naturalistic assumption does not create controversy. That is if the chemistry of water and salt determine how much salt dissolves in water, everyone is happy. This finding does not go against anyone’s religion. So we don’t have any controversy and science works as it should.

But what about evolution and more specifically the origin of life. When science starts to investigate these events, it can and does create controversy. In this case, science is applying the philosophy of atheism to investigate events that most believe can be attributed to Gods handiwork or will.
Now we have controversy. And interestingly enough, it is this controversy that forces science to fail. Because of the attention, scientists are no longer allowed to say we dont know. Instead, they often promote a hypothesis with no experimental support to the status of theory (for example, self replicating RNA molecules).

And they claim they know how things happened when in reality they don’t have a clue.

Furthermore, many things are just assumed true. For example, science assumes that evolution is true. This assumption arises directly from the naturalistic axiom. So when Darwin proposed his theory, science did not have to test it. Instead it just set about trying to prove it correct.

.
Yes Dear ProP…..

We could while away more than a few hours and more than a few snap~n cold suds

contemplating a riddles of the ages with to many sages,but we’ll be the one that gauges those to many sages!
ghost ceiling cat….

Assuming Intelligent design in the first place ……..it does not assume that the axiom on which it rests (theistic evolution) is correct. By using probability theory to calculate the odds of something happening, intelligent design theory can either infer design and no design. In other words, if the scientific evidence does not suggest a designer was required to create life, then intelligent design will not infer one. Thus, in my opinion, intelligent design offers a better way to investigate origin of life theories.
gotoswaitig4U………

any self replicating RNA molecule that cannot also synthesize activated nucleotides (like ATP or IMPA) will only be able to replicate in a test tube with the help of researchers who supply these nucleotides.

This leads to the conclusion that simple self replicating RNA molecules do not exist and that the RNA world hypothesis should instead be called the myth of the RNA world because it did not exist, and it does not help explain any of the mysteries surrounding the origin of life.

Dude, believe in a diety that speaks magic words and poofs everything into existence for all I care.

Now quit copy/pasting someone else’s ignorance and try asking a question. http://theory-of-evolution.net/intelligent-design-blog/

Alright, so If we apply the properties of Evolution vs. No Evolution there is a 1:1 or 50% chance that they are actually correct.

So, if the theory of evolution is correct we should expect that 1 out of every 2 monkeys should give birth to a human.

Now if we assume that we have 12000 Monkeys in captivity, and half of which are female, you have 6000 pairs of monkeys that can produce offspring. If each female gives birth 3 times, you now have 18000 Monkeys over the span of roughly 10 years.

However, none of the offspring are human. They are all monkeys.

So what we expected to be about 9000 human births from zoo monkeys, according to evolution, ended up just being 18000 more monkeys, predicted from common sense.

I now challenge anyone here to show me a legitimate, non-biased scientific article of a zoo monkey giving birth to *one* single human being, let alone the 9000 that we expected.

Therefore, we have solid, mathematical proof that Darwin did not exist.

You not only need to go back to science class, you also need to go back to math class.

There is a theory that pigs can fly. Either they can fly or they can’t. In the absence of any other information, we could say that there is a 50% chance that my theory is true, since there are two outcomes, i.e., it is true or it is false. This doesn’t mean that half of all pigs can fly.

I came upon a new kind of information lately. I am a christian, and Ive finally thought a good, and scientific question for you guys. You guys probably knew this but you do realise that there are other scientist in the world that completely and utterly believe in the existence of GOD, namely the quantum physics, and bio-physics mechanics guys. They are basically the guys that study the cosmos and its physical properties, and basically work together with large institutions such as NASA, and others. You must agree that they are notable in their intellect and I guess their reputation precedes them. Yet, unlike all evolutionary, darwin based scientists, and obviously atheists, quantum physics over the years not only has brought more light of whats going on in the universe, but constantly keeps them stating and directly commenting the existence of GOD being in the unverse and everywhere. Now, dont mix that with religion, as I also disagree with religion, but completly believe with whats written in the BIBLE being right and true.
My question however, is if why continuing on asking us to prove the existence of GOD while all along you have members of the scientific world that arent even christian, pouring theyre years and time of studies to in the end confess that GOD exists?

Hello Some Dude, try and learn how to type in English. Thanks.
Peace and Namaste!

http://www.ewebengine.com/listredir.php?id=331770&s=youtube&l=1

678 Darwin
Pinckney, MI 48169

Beautiful Property With Matured Trees. Many New Items Have Been Updated On This Wonderful Ranch. Newer Roof, Central Air, Furnace, Hot Water Heater. Amish Oak Kitchen Cabinets & Corian Counters. Main Floor Offers Living Room, Two Way Fireplace, Dining Room, Master Suite & Two Other Bedrooms & Full Bath. Walk-out Basement W/wood Fireplace & Pool/game Room.

Listed by Michelle Vedder – Real Estate One

http://www.ewebengine.com/listredir.php?id=331770&s=youtube&l=1

Duration : 0:1:8

Read more…

Technorati Tags: Home, mi, Pinckney, realestate, sale