Answers in Genesis
Sastan
been soundly refuted (no cracks about Creationism in general being
refuted please), which they have refused to take down?
For instance, if they were to have continued claiming the moon dust
arguement, and continued to host them material.
There used to be a good site, No Answers in Genesis, but it appears to
have lost it's focus (from what I can see of the new design) on AiG.
I'm looking for specific examples.
Thanks,
Sastan
Darwin
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
--
~Darwin~
"There is grandeur in this view of life,...that,
whilst this planet has gone cycling on according
to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a
beginning endless forms most beautiful and most
wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
-Charles Darwin
"Nature makes so gradual a transition from the
inanimate to the animate kingdom that the boundary
lines which separate them are indistinct and doubtful."
-Aristotle
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
For starters:
time periods in days are used before night/day supposidly exist.
humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
we now know that stars aren't just pinpricks in the sky
the earth isn't flat
Michael Painter
"Sastan" <sas...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
news:5ifalt4tu36o97hqs...@4ax.com...
The order of creation in both versions of the story is wrong. The second
version would imply that if Adam liked the llama, she might have been my
mama.
With the exception of very fundamentalists, the type that support AiG, it
is well known that the exact translation of Gen 1:1 is not and cannot be
known.
Jim Hofmann
http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie002.html
--
Jim Hofmann
Cal State Fullerton
<The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9lbdvs.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.h
ome.com...
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
>On amino acid sequencing comparisons, see:
>
>http://home.mmcable.com/harlequin/evol/lies/lie002.html
wow. what a load of horse shit and mental masturbation.
Doug Matulis
<The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9lbdvs.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.h
ome.com...
> >Would anybody be abletopresent links to articles on AiG which have
> >been soundly refuted (no cracks about Creationism in general being
> >refuted please), which they have refused to take down?
> >
> >For instance, if they were to have continued claiming the moon dust
> >arguement, and continued to host them material.
> >
> >There used to be a good site, No Answers in Genesis, but it appears to
> >have lost it's focus (from what I can see of the new design) on AiG.
> >
> >I'm looking for specific examples.
>
> For starters:
>
> time periods in days are used before night/day supposidly exist.
It makes perfect sense to describe the 'time periods' as days
beforehand, even though the time unit 'day' had not been established.
This is a description of events after the fact. Anyone with a 2nd
grade reading level should be able to figure this out.
> humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
Why don't you learn something about genetics
before you make such a stupid statement.
> we now know that stars aren't just pinpricks in the sky
> the earth isn't flat
You just figured this out!
>
Ken Cox
> <The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote:
> > humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
> Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
> Why don't you learn something about genetics
> before you make such a stupid statement.
Oh, the irony...
Two people is a maximum of how many distinct alleles?
(Ignore the notion that Eve was actually some sort of
transgendered clone of Adam, and assume her genes could
be different from his.)
How many distinct alleles are there for some human
genes?
Is the first answer greater than the second?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Tom
<3b55dfb2$0$1...@wodc7nh6.news.uu.net>, "Doug stated..."
>
>
><The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn9lbdvs.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.h
>ome.com...
>> On 18 Jul 2001 03:47:52 -0400, Sastan <sas...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
>> >Would anybody be abletopresent links to articles on AiG which have
>> >been soundly refuted (no cracks about Creationism in general being
>> >refuted please), which they have refused to take down?
>> >
>> >For instance, if they were to have continued claiming the moon dust
>> >arguement, and continued to host them material.
>> >
>> >There used to be a good site, No Answers in Genesis, but it appears to
>> >have lost it's focus (from what I can see of the new design) on AiG.
>> >
>> >I'm looking for specific examples.
>>
>> For starters:
>>
>> time periods in days are used before night/day supposidly exist.
>
>It makes perfect sense to describe the 'time periods' as days
>beforehand, even though the time unit 'day' had not been established.
>This is a description of events after the fact. Anyone with a 2nd
>grade reading level should be able to figure this out.
Just saying, "It ain't so" is not indicative of a high level
of analytical reading skills. If the sun was put into the
firmament, as Genesis 1 says, to make days and nights, how were
there days and nights before that? This is not an old problem,
you know. For example, Philo of Alexandria (about the 1st
century) pointed out a similar problem.
>
>> humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
>
>Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
>Why don't you learn something about genetics
>before you make such a stupid statement.
All the genetic information was there, eh? The genetic
information to protect us from diseases? Why did Adam and Eve
have immune systems? Or was that an evolutionary development
after the Fall?
>
>> we now know that stars aren't just pinpricks in the sky
>> the earth isn't flat
>
>You just figured this out!
Now, answer the objection.
Tom
Bobby D. Bryant
"Michael Painter" <m.pa...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> The order of creation in both versions of the story is wrong. The
> second version would imply that if Adam liked the llama, she might
> have been my mama.
LMAO. Now *that* is an exegesis of Genesis II that I never heard in
sunday school!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
Why don't you? With a breeding stock of just two, humanity would have died
out in 5 generations.
Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
*nemo*
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.att.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
**************************************************
Always up for a little grilled sacred scroll
-
With just a dash of innuendo added for fun...
**************************************************
*nemo*
Answers" site. My bad...
georgann
> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
georgann wrote:
They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
--
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
"O Timothy, guard what was committed to your
trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings
and contradictions of what is falsely called
knowledge ã by professing it, some have strayed
concerning the faith." 1 Timothy 6:20-21
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
Michael Painter
"georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:B77B9E42.2A139%chen...@mindspring.com...
> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> > Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
>
> georgann wrote:
> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
> --
> *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
> "O Timothy, guard what was committed to your
> trust, avoiding the profane and vain babblings
> and contradictions of what is falsely called
> knowledge < by professing it, some have strayed
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
>The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
sure. they had fairy dust
georgann
>>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>> georgann wrote:
>> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
Michael Painter:
> I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
georgann wrote:
Well, you could.
But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
Eric Gill
>
> >> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> >>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
> >> georgann wrote:
> >> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
> Michael Painter:
> > I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
>
> georgann wrote:
> Well, you could.
> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
Indeed.
Tell, us, then, how "sin" pulled the sliding focusing mechanism out of
the eye and replaced it with the flexing lens screwup, then inverted the
focus, added brain material to correct for that, yanked the optical
nerve from the back of the retina and jammed it on the front, and
finally removed the extra lenses from the mechanism.
Demonic geneticists, maybe?
--
Real Men Love Jesus...but Straight Men Love Women.
Flames will be cheerfully ignored.
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com
>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
>
>georgann wrote:
>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
they didn't have knowledge of genetics then. Just primative fictional writing.
Michael Painter
> >> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> >>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
> >> georgann wrote:
> >> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
> Michael Painter:
> > I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
>
> georgann wrote:
> Well, you could.
> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
>
Please tell us how you determined this lack of vulnerability and why it
changed?
georgann
>>>>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>>>> georgann wrote:
>>>> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>> Michael Painter:
>>> I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
>> georgann wrote:
>> Well, you could.
>> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
>> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
Michael Painter:
> No, you said something that is equally as meaningless. Please tell us how you
> determined this lack of vulnerability and why it changed?
georgann wrote:
If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who knows
when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically linked
weaknesses were extremely few in number. Prolly started out at zero and went
up over time.
--
*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
The reverence for the LORD is the beginning
of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One
is understanding
- Proverbs 9:10
Ken Cox
> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who knows
> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically linked
> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story
is true, we have to make up a bunch of stuff in order
for it to make sense.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Tom
stated..."
>
>georgann wrote:
>>
>> >> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>> >>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>>
>> >> georgann wrote:
>> >> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>>
>> Michael Painter:
>> > I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
>>
>> georgann wrote:
>> Well, you could.
>> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
>> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
>
>Indeed.
>
>Tell, us, then, how "sin" pulled the sliding focusing mechanism out of
>the eye and replaced it with the flexing lens screwup, then inverted the
>focus, added brain material to correct for that, yanked the optical
>nerve from the back of the retina and jammed it on the front, and
>finally removed the extra lenses from the mechanism.
>
>Demonic geneticists, maybe?
Hmmm.
It *does* seem to be Irreducibly Complex, doesn't it?
I'd say that it has all the marks of Intelligent Design.
Who the intelligent designers were, pious minds would not
inquire.
Tom
1Adam12
"Tom" <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9j7e7...@drn.newsguy.com...
Pretty bad design for someone who knows everything, dont you think?
Thomas P.
>georgann wrote:
>> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who knows
>> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically linked
>> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
>
>So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story
>is true, we have to make up a bunch of stuff in order
>for it to make sense.
Luckily for us we have georgann who is more than willing to do the
job.
>
>--
>Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
>
Thomas P.
I always never wrote that letter.
August Pamplona
news:3Xs57.9466$gj1.8...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B77B9E42.2A139%chen...@mindspring.com...
> > The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> > > Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
> >
> >
> > georgann wrote:
> > They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
> I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
Georgeann is correct about inbreeding. It is not intrinsically bad. The
problem with inbreeding is that it exposes potentially harmful recessive genes
which we all tend to have in small numbers. The other problem with inbreeding is
that there's no such thing as perfect genes (except in the fertile imagination
of Nazi eugenicists). Genes that do an O.K. job in one circumstance will not
fare as well in a different circumstance and if such a gene is all that a
certain population has in stock in its gene pool, the whole population will
suffer for it and, perhaps, die out.
The problem with descending only from an Adam & Eve 6000 -10000 years ago
(assuming a YEC timeline) is that we are not inbred (and if we all descended
from 2 humans we'd be so inbred we probably wouldn't even need to use
antirejection drugs for organ transplants).
Augusty Pamplona
--
"Today, at the dawn of the 21st century, the global village is finally complete.
At last it has a global village idiot."
--some article at The Guardian (20, Jan., 2001 )
a.a. # 1811
To email replace 'necatoramericanusancylostomaduodenale' with 'cosmicaug'
georgann
>>> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who knows
>>> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically linked
>>> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
>> So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story is true, we have to
>> make up a bunch of stuff in order for it to make sense.
Thomas P.:
> Luckily for us we have georgann who is more than willing to do the job.
georgann wrote:
I don't have to make anything up.
The truth is far stranger than any fiction.
All I've done is take what's written in black and white (with extra colors
in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper. An
illustration as it were.
Michael Painter
> >> georgann wrote:
> >>> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who
knows
> >>> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically
linked
> >>> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
>
> >> So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story is true, we have
to
> >> make up a bunch of stuff in order for it to make sense.
>
> Thomas P.:
> > Luckily for us we have georgann who is more than willing to do the job.
>
> georgann wrote:
> I don't have to make anything up.
>
> The truth is far stranger than any fiction.
>
> All I've done is take what's written in black and white (with extra colors
> in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper. An
> illustration as it were.
>
accurate picture of history.
As for what is written, you've taken parts and put it on screen. Had Adam
been happy with a llama you might not be here.
(I picked the llama because allegedly it is *very*, um, compatible.
Bobby D. Bryant
<chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> All I've done is take what's written in black and white (with extra
> colors in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper.
Which version of the bible do you use? I'd like to read the part about
people's genetic weaknesses starting out at zero and rising to a high
level afterward.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
georgann
>> colors in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper.
Bobby D. Bryant:
> Which version of the bible do you use? I'd like to read the part about
> people's genetic weaknesses starting out at zero and rising to a high
> level afterward.
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
georgann wrote:
I wasn't talking about genetics in that sentence. But if you're interested I
prefer the New American Standard.
Jon Fleming
Am I missing something? Is it not possible for mutation to create new
alleles? (putting aside for the moment the question of rate of
mutation).
--
Change "nospam" to "group" to email
August Pamplona
news:dgtbltoafp3c69hrb...@4ax.com...
> On 18 Jul 2001 15:17:53 -0400, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >Doug Matulis wrote:
> >> <The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
> >
> >> Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
> >> Why don't you learn something about genetics
> >> before you make such a stupid statement.
> >
> >Oh, the irony...
> >
> >Two people is a maximum of how many distinct alleles?
> >(Ignore the notion that Eve was actually some sort of
> >transgendered clone of Adam, and assume her genes could
> >be different from his.)
4 at each locus (two for each parent). Of course the number gets greatly
reduced with their children down to two with the first child increasing to 4
(but never more than four --disregarding mutation) as the number of children
gets really, really big (the chance of any given one of the 4 alleles at each
locus being lost is 1/(2^^n) where n is the number of children). If you repeat
the process, you lose more and more alleles (because children of siblings are
statistically likely to increase homozygosity) until you reach 1 per locus
(known as inbreeding). Not that they would have any choice about inbreeding when
everybody else is a sibling or parent.
> >
> >How many distinct alleles are there for some human
> >genes?
> >
> >Is the first answer greater than the second?
>
> Am I missing something? Is it not possible for mutation to create new
> alleles? (putting aside for the moment the question of rate of
> mutation).
Of course it can. Why should we put aside the question of the rate of
mutation? There would have to be a very high rate of mutation and lots of
natural selection (IOW, fast forwarded evolution). This is actually what some
creationists say. Never mind that out of the other side of their mouth they'll
be saying that all mutations are always harmful, etc.. Never mind that the
creationist argument turns into "evolution can't happen except when it's
convenient for out creationist arguments".
>
> --
> Change "nospam" to "group" to email
August Pamplona
Pat James
(in message <XoJ57.11338$gj1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>):
>
> "georgann" <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:B77CD662.2A600%chen...@mindspring.com...
>>>> georgann wrote:
>>>>> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who
> knows
>>>>> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically
> linked
>>>>> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
>>
>>>> So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story is true, we have
> to
>>>> make up a bunch of stuff in order for it to make sense.
>>
>> Thomas P.:
>>> Luckily for us we have georgann who is more than willing to do the job.
>>
>> georgann wrote:
>> I don't have to make anything up.
>>
>> The truth is far stranger than any fiction.
>>
>> All I've done is take what's written in black and white (with extra colors
>> in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper. An
>> illustration as it were.
>>
> Gone with the wind is written in black and white and contains a more
> accurate picture of history.
well... let's just say that one character in GWTW was pregnant for about 11
months if you go by the dates when certain battles were fought. And WT
Sherman wasn't nearly as naughty in reality as he was in the book. Though he
should have been. Ahem:
So we made a thoroughfare for freedom and her train,
Sixty miles in latitude, 300 to the main.
Treason fled before us, for resistance was in vain
While we were marching through Georgia!
> As for what is written, you've taken parts and put it on screen. Had Adam
> been happy with a llama you might not be here.
>
> (I picked the llama because allegedly it is *very*, um, compatible.
Obviously Scotsmen were not consulted. (Scotland: where men were men, women
were men too, and sheep were nervous.) (Dodges fast-moving haggis on his way
to the egress...)
>
--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.
Thomas P.
wrote:
>>> georgann wrote:
>>>> If there were very few people on the earth (as per Genesis and who knows
>>>> when so don't start on dates), it stands to reason that genetically linked
>>>> weaknesses were extremely few in number.
>
>>> So, you're saying that if we assume the Genesis story is true, we have to
>>> make up a bunch of stuff in order for it to make sense.
>
>Thomas P.:
>> Luckily for us we have georgann who is more than willing to do the job.
>
>georgann wrote:
>I don't have to make anything up.
>
>The truth is far stranger than any fiction.
>
>All I've done is take what's written in black and white (with extra colors
>in the extra column editions) in the Bible and put it to paper. An
>illustration as it were.
Don't be so modest. You have made lots of stuff up.
>
>--
>*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
>The reverence for the LORD is the beginning
>of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One
>is understanding
> - Proverbs 9:10
>*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'
>
>
Thomas P.
Al Klein
>The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>georgann wrote:
>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
We've evolved since then? Animals, vegetables and bacteria ALL have
recessive genes. If we didn't have recessive genes back then - your
claim - we wouldn't be here.
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
rukbat at optonline dot net
Al Klein
The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com () posted in
alt.atheism:
>On 18 Jul 2001 20:14:04 -0400, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>>georgann wrote:
>>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>sure. they had fairy dust
She's claiming that we evolved since then?
Al Klein
<doug.m...@docsense.com> posted in alt.atheism:
><The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn9lbdvs.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.h
>ome.com...
>> For starters:
>> time periods in days are used before night/day supposidly exist.
>It makes perfect sense to describe the 'time periods' as days
>beforehand, even though the time unit 'day' had not been established.
>This is a description of events after the fact. Anyone with a 2nd
>grade reading level should be able to figure this out.
Since hours are defined as parts of days, and minutes parts of hours,
and etc., before there's a sun, the entire concept of time wouldn't
occur to whomever was there.
>> humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
>Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
>Why don't you learn something about genetics
>before you make such a stupid statement.
Genetics says that a breeding stock of two won't last.
>> we now know that stars aren't just pinpricks in the sky
>> the earth isn't flat
>You just figured this out!
The bible didn't.
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
>(I picked the llama because allegedly it is *very*, um, compatible.
I'm more than happy to just take your word for it. <grin>
-
Best Wishes,
Johnny Bravo
BAAWA Knight, EAC - Temporal Adjustments Division
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church
"The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability
of the human mind to correlate all its contents." - HP Lovecraft
Johnny Bravo
wrote:
Perhaps it's near the part about changing an animals genetic code for coloring
after showing it a rod with marks on it.
Genesis 30:
37 ś And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree;
and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the
rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in
the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive
when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle
ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Stephen F. Schaffner
Al Klein <ehx...@bcgbayvar.arg> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 2001 20:14:04 -0400, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
>posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
>>georgann wrote:
>>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
>We've evolved since then? Animals, vegetables and bacteria ALL have
>recessive genes. If we didn't have recessive genes back then - your
>claim - we wouldn't be here.
Bacteria suffer from inbreeding depression?
--
Steve Schaffner s...@genome.wi.mit.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Ken Cox
> I don't have to make anything up.
Really? Where in the Bible does it discuss the genomes
of Adam and Eve?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Ken Cox
> On 18 Jul 2001 15:17:53 -0400, Ken Cox <k...@lucent.com> wrote:
> >Doug Matulis wrote:
> >> <The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote:
> >> > humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
> >> Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
> >Two people is a maximum of how many distinct alleles?
> Am I missing something? Is it not possible for mutation to create new
> alleles? (putting aside for the moment the question of rate of
> mutation).
Yes, it can, though that would be -- gasp -- evolution.
However, what Doug *wrote* above was "all the genetic
information was there" in the two individuals.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Michael Painter
"Johnny Bravo" <bravo...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:kg0gltsj80fl199hp...@4ax.com...
> On 19 Jul 2001 18:44:12 -0400, "Michael Painter"
<m.pa...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >(I picked the llama because allegedly it is *very*, um, compatible.
>
> I'm more than happy to just take your word for it. <grin>
>
> -
> Best Wishes,
> Johnny Bravo
I just read it in a,a ,a book, yeah, that's it, I read it in a book.
I also vaguely remember that there was a requirement for a woman "companion"
to travel with men who made longer trips with the animals.
Bobby D. Bryant
<bravo...@usa.net> wrote:
> 39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle
> ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
Yeah, we used to do that when we wanted striped puppies.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Eric Gill
>
> "On 19 Jul 2001 10:14:19 -0400, in article <3B56E9A9...@yahoo.com>, Eric
> stated..."
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> >> >>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
> >>
> >> >> georgann wrote:
> >> >> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
> >>
> >> Michael Painter:
> >> > I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
> >>
> >> georgann wrote:
> >> Well, you could.
> >> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
> >> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
> >
> >Indeed.
> >
> >Tell, us, then, how "sin" pulled the sliding focusing mechanism out of
> >the eye and replaced it with the flexing lens screwup, then inverted the
> >focus, added brain material to correct for that, yanked the optical
> >nerve from the back of the retina and jammed it on the front, and
> >finally removed the extra lenses from the mechanism.
> >
> >Demonic geneticists, maybe?
>
> Hmmm.
>
> It *does* seem to be Irreducibly Complex, doesn't it?
No. It *looks* to be a Drunkards Walk solution arrived at by modifying
existing structures without any sort of intelligent guidance.
Which is precisely what NeoDarwinian Biological Evolution should look
like. Which is no suprise, since the theory was arrived at by examining
the evidence, rather than making up a fairy tale.
I'll grant you the process of screwing up the eye from a design that
might be considered 'perfect' would be a ID process, but then magic
creatures making changes to reality in such a way to leave no trace of
their activities would be, wouldn't it?
> I'd say that it has all the marks of Intelligent Design.
I say an Intelligent Designer competent enough to engineer life is too
competent to come up with the silly system we've been saddled with.
<snip>
--
Real Men Love Jesus...but Straight Men Love Women.
Flames will be cheerfully ignored.
Tom
stated..."
My apologies. I've got to learn to break this bad habit of
mine, to assume that strangers will recognize when I am being
ironic.
I'm not that good of a writer. And I have to remind myself
that there is no parody of creationism which is too outrageous
not to have been written by a creationist.
Tom Scharle
tui...@earthlink.net
I discovered the same thing when I first delurked with a sardonic post.
Your writing is fine, but the vocal cues one gets to help determine if a
statement is facetious are rather difficult to reproduce in a newsgroup.
>
> Tom Scharle
>
>
Eric Gill
Whoops. Sorry, Tom. You are, of course, entirely correct- I even
wondered about the first Onion parody I read...but with them it was at
least possible to look at the rest of their site and pick up on the idea
that parody was their business.
Stanley Friesen
>On 18 Jul 2001 20:14:04 -0400, georgann <chen...@mindspring.com>
>posted in alt.atheism:
>
>>The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
>>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
>
>>georgann wrote:
>>They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
>
>We've evolved since then? Animals, vegetables and bacteria ALL have
>recessive genes.
Two out of three ain't bad. Bacteria are universally haploid, so there
can *be* no such thing as dominant and recessive for them. (Bacteria
split off from our line before we eukaryotes invented real sex).
>If we didn't have recessive genes back then - your
>claim - we wouldn't be here.
Whoever claimed this is wrong.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Apostate
>Doug Matulis wrote:
>> <The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote:
>> > humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
>
>> Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
>> Why don't you learn something about genetics
>> before you make such a stupid statement.
>
>Oh, the irony...
>
>Two people is a maximum of how many distinct alleles?
>(Ignore the notion that Eve was actually some sort of
>transgendered clone of Adam, and assume her genes could
>be different from his.)
>
>How many distinct alleles are there for some human
>genes?
>
>Is the first answer greater than the second?
That doesn't sound satisfactory, since it allows for no novelty
arising from recombination or mutation, etc., over the many millennia
of human populations. Even allowing the general thesis the
Central Scrutinizer offers, it is hard to escape that there was a
first pairing that was the first 'founding' of the human population,
though any number of additional events may have 'founded' new
populations de novo (as opposed to common descent from the first
pair.) Seems to me a weak criticism to point out that the buybull
authors knew no genetics, or, in fact, no biology. Only effective
against the narrowest literalism.
--
/Apostate
atheist #1931 I've found it!
Christianity(tm) -- the official mythology of the Roman Empire Olympics.
Steven J.
you'd be surprised by the number of creationists who are *very*
reluctant to admit to any mutations that aren't harmful. Zoe Althrop
seems to spend half her time asserting that mutations are
inconceivably rare events that cannot result in significant genetic
diversity. And AiG, the subject of this thread, is pretty insistent
that mutations can only decrease information, which claim is vague,
but not friendly towards the idea that mutations can increase genetic
diversity. The narrowest literalism is not so rare as you might
think, or hope.
And most YECs (certainly those at AiG) seem strongly opposed to any
pre-Adamite or non-Adamite populations. They tend to insist that all
humans *must* be descended from Adam and Eve. There are interesting
(in the sense of "terrifying and grotesque racist") exceptions, of
course, who insist that the different races are descended from
different original creations.
-- Steven J.
Stanley Friesen
>Recombination, by itself, doesn't create new alleles.
It does if it occurs *within* a gene (a section of DNA coding for one
product). Admittedly that is a rare occurrence, but nothing I know of
rules it out.
Steven J.
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
> >Recombination, by itself, doesn't create new alleles.
>
> It does if it occurs *within* a gene (a section of DNA coding for one
> product). Admittedly that is a rare occurrence, but nothing I know of
> rules it out.
>
read of this precise mechanism in Colin Patterson's _Evolution_, so I
had no excuse for saying that, except that it would be, as you note,
rare.
In the words of America's philosopher, Homer Simpson, "D'oh!"
>
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
-- Steven J.
Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
..
The United Christian States of America
The Washington Laws.
Ex-president Bush said that Atheists should not be considered good citizens;
Atheists are denied all rights of citizenship and will be treated as
Illegal immigrants.
Thursday, July 26, 2001
Attention. Attention. All Atheists must report to your local Christian
police station or suffer extreme punishment
All atheists must conform to the following Christian Washington laws
.. All Atheists, including Atheist children must wear a yellow arm band
marked with the letter A at all times
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to have their children in public schools
.. It is forbidden Atheists to be employed by Christian employers
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to have a Christian spouse
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to employ Christian employees
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to hold public office
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to rent apartments or buy homes from a
Christian.
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to buy goods from a Christian merchant.
.. It is a law all Atheists must move to their designated ghettos.
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to have sexual relationships with Christians.
.. All bank deposits of Atheists must be turned over to the Christian bank of
America
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to travel without permission from your local
Christian police
.. It is forbidden for Atheists to have access to any form of entertainment
.. Atheists will no longer be protected from harm by the Christian police
department.
.. It is forbidden Atheists to be treated by Christian doctors.
.. It is forbidden Atheist merchants to sell to Christians
.. All Atheists who become Christians will be treated as Atheists.
.. All Atheist books must be turned over to the Christian police.
.. It is a capital offense to criticize the United Christian States of
America.
..
--
www.Dr-Newton-Joseph.com
<The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9lc26a.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.h
ome.com...
> On 18 Jul 2001 15:12:45 -0400, Doug Matulis <doug.m...@docsense.com>
wrote:
> >
> ><The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>news:slrn9lbdvs.4in.The.Cent...@C1459607-A.arvada1.co.
h
> >ome.com...
> >> On 18 Jul 2001 03:47:52 -0400, Sastan <sas...@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> >> >Would anybody be abletopresent links to articles on AiG which have
> >> >been soundly refuted (no cracks about Creationism in general being
> >> >refuted please), which they have refused to take down?
> >> >
> >> >For instance, if they were to have continued claiming the moon dust
> >> >arguement, and continued to host them material.
> >> >
> >> >There used to be a good site, No Answers in Genesis, but it appears to
> >> >have lost it's focus (from what I can see of the new design) on AiG.
> >> >
> >> >I'm looking for specific examples.
> >>
> >> For starters:
> >>
> >> time periods in days are used before night/day supposidly exist.
> >
> >It makes perfect sense to describe the 'time periods' as days
> >beforehand, even though the time unit 'day' had not been established.
> >This is a description of events after the fact. Anyone with a 2nd
> >grade reading level should be able to figure this out.
> >
> >> humanity couldn't start from a breeding stock of two
> >
> >Sure it could. All the genetic infomation was there.
> >Why don't you learn something about genetics
> >before you make such a stupid statement.
> >
>
> Why don't you? With a breeding stock of just two, humanity would have died
> out in 5 generations.
Ferrous Patella
Ph.D. says...
[snippty doo dah]
Hey Mister "Dr., Ph.D.", do you do that on purpose or are you that ignorant?
--
Ferrous Patella
Name changed to suedough latin to avoid false positives on Mark V units
Louann Miller
wrote:
>In article <02sa7.4307$ig6.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Dr. Newton Joseph,
>Ph.D. says...
>[snippty doo dah]
>
>
>Hey Mister "Dr., Ph.D.", do you do that on purpose or are you that ignorant?
Even if he was both a "real doctor" (i.e., an MD -- in the opinion of
MDs) and a PhD, the appropriate styling would be to put both degrees
at the end -- John Doe, MD, Ph.D -- in formal written contexts and
just go by Dr. Doe for direct address.
Mitchell Coffey
Frankly, the proper form of direct address to people who use their
titles and degrees in informal setting is "Hey, A######..."
Master Mitchell Coffey, MA
Floyd
Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote in article
<a766a589.0108...@posting.google.com>...
That's _DOCTOR_ A****** to you, buddy! ;-)
-Rt. Rev. Dr. Floyd, MA, PhC, DD, KSC
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu>:
You forgot "OWK, JK"...
--
(Note followups, if any)
Bob C.
Reply to Bob-Casanova @ worldnet.att.net
(without the spaces, of course)
"Men become civilized, not in proportion to their willingness
to believe, but in proportion to their readiness to doubt."
--H. L. Mencken
Chib
Well, I guess that leaves beer.....
-chib
--
What if the hokey-pokey
is really what it's all about?
Bored With The Boring Again
<drnj...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
Taken from the Nuremberg laws?
Erikc (alt.atheist #002) | "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil."
BAAWA Knight | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
Awarded title of "Defacto CLuM" by "kansan" 2001-05-12
======
Remove god to respond.
======
At one point in time, many of us actually had Jesus as
our personal lord and saviour. Unfortunately, we later
had to dismiss him for incompetence, gross negligence,
misconduct and consistent failure to show up for work.
---
Religious people believe IN god.
The religious right believes they ARE god.
Bob Pease
Chib <chib...@earthstink.net> wrote in message
news:chibiabos-C78F2...@nnrp04.earthlink.net...
I fear that these are taken directly from the Nuremberg Laws.
Also ,I again point out that the Christian State Police will be known as
"Christapo"
Fury
news:9kijlr$9...@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
>
> I fear that these are taken directly from the Nuremberg Laws.
>
> Also ,I again point out that the Christian State Police will be known as
> "Christapo"
Heh.
Are you the same Bob Pease who used to work for National Semiconductor? :)
Bob Pease
Fury <a...@ifyouwant.it> wrote in message
news:VK7b7.1970$EE1.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Nope. But he is rather famous in EDP circles.
I have a picture of him in Bagpipe regalia.
Anti Fundies
Sounds like "Gestapo".
jeff
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> In article <02sa7.4307$ig6.1...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Dr. Newton Joseph,
> Ph.D. says...
> [snippty doo dah]
>
> Hey Mister "Dr., Ph.D.", do you do that on purpose or are you that ignorant?
>
> --
> Ferrous Patella
> Name changed to suedough latin to avoid false positives on Mark V units
Hey it happened before. And it is going on in other countries.
Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
INTELLIGENT DESIGN
It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
drnj...@socal.rr.com
www.dr-newton-joseph.com
"Tom" <Tom_m...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:9j7e7...@drn.newsguy.com...
> "On 19 Jul 2001 10:14:19 -0400, in article <3B56E9A9...@yahoo.com>,
Eric
> stated..."
> >
> >georgann wrote:
> >>
> >> >> The.Central.Scru...@invalid.pobox.com:
> >> >>> Have you never heard of the concept of inbreeding?
> >>
> >> >> georgann wrote:
> >> >> They didn't have the genetic vulnerabilities then.
> >>
> >> Michael Painter:
> >> > I'd point out crappy design but the response would be "sindidit"
> >>
> >> georgann wrote:
> >> Well, you could.
> >> But then you'd only be answering your own questions.
> >> You'll notice _I_ didn't say "sin did it".
> >
> >Indeed.
> >
> >Tell, us, then, how "sin" pulled the sliding focusing mechanism out of
> >the eye and replaced it with the flexing lens screwup, then inverted the
> >focus, added brain material to correct for that, yanked the optical
> >nerve from the back of the retina and jammed it on the front, and
> >finally removed the extra lenses from the mechanism.
> >
> >Demonic geneticists, maybe?
>
> Hmmm.
>
> It *does* seem to be Irreducibly Complex, doesn't it?
>
> I'd say that it has all the marks of Intelligent Design.
>
> Who the intelligent designers were, pious minds would not
> inquire.
>
> Tom
>
>
Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
CONTAGIOUS INSANITY
Final draft
Folie a deux ("double insanity") The French distinguished mental alienation
and insanity (folie)considering the former in a generic sense while they
used folie to denote a psychiatric condition acquired by a person who had
previously been in good mental health.
Folie a deux (double insanity) has been known by other names: communicated
insanity, induced insanity or double insanity.
Suggestibility plays a part, among other factors, in the genesis of
folie a deux. When two or more persons closely associated with one another
suffer a psychosis simultaneously, and when one member appears to have
influenced the other. The condition is not of course necessarily confined to
two persons and may involve three or more. Folie a communiqué (infectious
insanity). Folie imitative (imitative insanity) folie impose (imposed
insanity) folie raisonnante (reasoning insanity)
The above has been played out thousands of times throughout history.
Certainly the witch craze of the seventeenth century is a good example.
Another example was played out in the middle of the last century in Nazi
Germany; In the 1920's the Nazi's were a group of ragamuffins and
malcontents who could not get jobs during Germanys runway inflation. As
Nazi's gained prominence more Germans were caught up in the Nazi frenzy by
the inducement of infectious, imitative and reasoning insanity.
The same correlation can be made of Americans caught up in the American
version of folie a deux during the communist witch hunts of the 1950's. And
beginning at this same time was a new movement of folie a deux called
Christian fundamentalism. As Christian television stations are broadcasting
twenty four hours a day the new version of folie a deux. The contagion is
very powerful. "Religion, defined in the broadest manner possible, holds the
key to a much deeper understanding of human behavior. This is because
of the very thin line separating religion from many classes of
psychopathology, with that line being culture itself. That is without
culture sanction, most of our religious and rituals would fall in the domain
of mental disturbance. Religion is abnormal in the literal sense of the
word. By this I mean that, in the course of adopting religion. One is
required to construe (or misconstrue) the world in terms of principles that
contradict or supersede naturalistic modes of understanding".The Corruption
of Reality by John F. Schumaker, Ph.D.
Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
"Fury" <a...@ifyouwant.it> wrote in message
news:VK7b7.1970$EE1.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
Aron-Ra
Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D. <drnj...@socal.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2klb7.7346$ig6.4...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
I'll have you know that I've been a STEADFAST believer in Intelligent Design
for many many years!
........I got better.
Aron-Ra
Ferrous Patella
Ph.D. says...
>
>
>
>
>CONTAGIOUS INSANITY
>Final draft
[...]
>Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
>
The subjects of this sub-thread are beer, the hokey-pokey, the Nuremberg Laws
and who works at National Semiconductor. Will you please try to stay on-topic?
--
Ferrous Patella
The reviews are in:
"...what's the funny part?" LM
"I groaned in admiration." RH
"You bastard!" MG
"You owe me ...." B(1)
"Oh shit...." B(2)
John R. Owens
Hot diggity. A nick with reviews. I'm impressed. ;)
Oh, and, to keep this post on-topic, umm.... Beer. Good.
--
--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
Ferrous Patella
>
>Ferrous Patella wrote:
>>
[...]
>> The subjects of this sub-thread are beer, the hokey-pokey, the Nuremberg
Laws
>> and who works at National Semiconductor. Will you please try to stay
on-topic?
>>
>> --
>> Ferrous Patella
>> The reviews are in:
>> "...what's the funny part?" LM
>> "I groaned in admiration." RH
>> "You bastard!" MG
>> "You owe me ...." B(1)
>> "Oh shit...." B(2)
>
> Hot diggity. A nick with reviews. I'm impressed. ;)
I was going to add your "..._nobody_ would ever get it..." but that would have
been changing the context a bit.
> Oh, and, to keep this post on-topic, umm.... Beer. Good.
If you're going to drink, don't hokey-pokey!
>--John R. Owens http://members.core.com/~jowens/
>
Floyd
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in article
<ielmmtsvrerdv4ile...@4ax.com>...
OWK, Odd, weird and Kafka-esque? Only went to kindergarten? Obnoxious
wannabe Klingon?
You could make an argument for any of these I suppose, but JK:
Jack Kennedy? Juvenile kook? Jellyfish kebab? Sorry, you lost me.
I did forget to add AMH and BMH, and (to express my inner Rimmer,) BSC,
SSC, but BFD. ;-)
-Floyd
A Pagano
"Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D." wrote:
>
> INTELLIGENT DESIGN
> It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
> popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
> their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
> the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
> home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
> are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
> and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
> Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
> blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
>
> Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
> drnj...@socal.rr.com
> www.dr-newton-joseph.com
Pagano replies:
Unfortunately for the good doctor, this line of reasoning ignores the
fact that supposedly legitimate "scientific" investigations, like SETI
(that is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) also claim that
one can develop tests for deciding whether something is the result of
intelligent design or not. SETI researchers are, generally speaking,
taken seriously and given funds to conduct such research. Intelligent
Design advocates, like Dembski, are attempting to develop similar tests
for other observables.
In addition living biological systems very plainly have the mark of
complexity and design. The appearance of design is so unmistakable and
unavoidable that the language of design can often be found in the
secular evolutionary literature. Nonetheless Richard Dawkins asserts
that the very plain appearance of design in biology is an illusion
simply because neoDarwinism, in principle, is able to dispense with an
intelligent agent. This is the claim, but the hard evidence is
virtually non existent. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a
single nascent structure demonstrating that this purely naturalistic
process is capable of the creation of such complexity. Furthermore even
if it was capable there is no evidence of any mechanism which could
integrate such systems together. Likewise evolutionists have yet to
discover a single genetic mechanism of integrating random nucleotide
copying errors progressively into the genome.
The good doctor may claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence. However given that evolutionary prehistory, particularly
the last 600 million years, is purported to be one of world wide
ubiquitious transformational change such evidence should be also
ubiquitous. It is completely absent.
Regards,
T Pagano
Elmer Bataitis
> There is no evidence in the fossil record of a
> single nascent structure demonstrating that this purely naturalistic
> process is capable of the creation of such complexity.
Tony, define "nascent" for us. Define "complexity" and since you *DO
NOT* think "naturalism" is true then how can you even accept the
existence of *ANY* "purely naturalistic process".
And when are you ever going to make your arguments via a
non-naturalistic method?
**********************************************************
Elmer Bataitis "Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!"
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884
Proudly wearing and displaying, as a badge of honor,
the straight jacket of conventional thought.
**********************************************************
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by mail1...@pop.net (Ferrous
Patella):
>In article <xtlb7.7348$ig6.4...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Dr. Newton Joseph,
>Ph.D. says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>CONTAGIOUS INSANITY
>>Final draft
>[...]
>>Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
>>
>
>The subjects of this sub-thread are beer, the hokey-pokey, the Nuremberg Laws
>and who works at National Semiconductor. Will you please try to stay on-topic?
You forgot the Illuminati.
Oops; sorry. I forgot that the Illuminati, like anything by
Monty Python, are on-topic in *any* thread, making their
inclusion redundant...
Bob Casanova
>In article <3b6f2e87$0$18894$272e...@news.execpc.com>, John R. Owens says...
>>
>>Ferrous Patella wrote:
>>>
>[...]
>>> The subjects of this sub-thread are beer, the hokey-pokey, the Nuremberg
>Laws
>>> and who works at National Semiconductor. Will you please try to stay
>on-topic?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ferrous Patella
>>> The reviews are in:
>>> "...what's the funny part?" LM
>>> "I groaned in admiration." RH
>>> "You bastard!" MG
>>> "You owe me ...." B(1)
>>> "Oh shit...." B(2)
>>
>> Hot diggity. A nick with reviews. I'm impressed. ;)
>
>
>I was going to add your "..._nobody_ would ever get it..." but that would have
>been changing the context a bit.
>
>
>> Oh, and, to keep this post on-topic, umm.... Beer. Good.
>
>If you're going to drink, don't hokey-pokey!
....or violate the Nuremberg Laws at National Semi.
Especially in the lunchroom.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu>:
>Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in article
><ielmmtsvrerdv4ile...@4ax.com>...
>> On 3 Aug 2001 17:42:34 -0400, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu>:
>> >Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote in article
<snip>
>> >> Frankly, the proper form of direct address to people who use their
>> >> titles and degrees in informal setting is "Hey, A######..."
>> >>
>> >> Master Mitchell Coffey, MA
>> >
>> >That's _DOCTOR_ A****** to you, buddy! ;-)
>> > -Rt. Rev. Dr. Floyd, MA, PhC, DD, KSC
>>
>> You forgot "OWK, JK"...
>
>OWK, Odd, weird and Kafka-esque? Only went to kindergarten? Obnoxious
>wannabe Klingon?
>You could make an argument for any of these I suppose, but JK:
>Jack Kennedy? Juvenile kook? Jellyfish kebab? Sorry, you lost me.
"Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi Knight". I'll be a nice person and
slack the line so you can spit out the hook now... ;-)
>I did forget to add AMH and BMH, and (to express my inner Rimmer,) BSC,
>SSC, but BFD. ;-)
You're a Superconducting SuperCollider? That *is* a BFD!
Ferrous Patella
>
>On 6 Aug 2001 18:34:39 -0400, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by mail1...@pop.net (Ferrous
>Patella):
>
>>In article <xtlb7.7348$ig6.4...@typhoon.we.rr.com>, Dr. Newton Joseph,
>>Ph.D. says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>CONTAGIOUS INSANITY
>>>Final draft
>>[...]
>>>Newton Joseph, Ph.D.
>>>
>>
>>The subjects of this sub-thread are beer, the hokey-pokey, the Nuremberg
Laws
>>and who works at National Semiconductor. Will you please try to stay
on-topic?
>
>You forgot the Illuminati.
>
I was about to pipe up with Inti-Illimani but I was afraid I'd get panned. A
chilly prospect.
>
>Bob C.
Floyd
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in article
<02n0ntgf504jbm83h...@4ax.com>...
> On 7 Aug 2001 15:29:03 -0400, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu>:
>
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in article
> ><ielmmtsvrerdv4ile...@4ax.com>...
> >> On 3 Aug 2001 17:42:34 -0400, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by "Floyd" <far...@u.washington.edu>:
> >> >Mitchell Coffey <MitC...@aol.com> wrote in article
>
> <snip>
>
> >> >> Frankly, the proper form of direct address to people who use their
> >> >> titles and degrees in informal setting is "Hey, A######..."
> >> >>
> >> >> Master Mitchell Coffey, MA
> >> >
> >> >That's _DOCTOR_ A****** to you, buddy! ;-)
> >> > -Rt. Rev. Dr. Floyd, MA, PhC, DD, KSC
> >>
> >> You forgot "OWK, JK"...
> >
> >OWK, Odd, weird and Kafka-esque? Only went to kindergarten? Obnoxious
> >wannabe Klingon?
> >You could make an argument for any of these I suppose, but JK:
> >Jack Kennedy? Juvenile kook? Jellyfish kebab? Sorry, you lost me.
>
> "Obi-Wan Kenobi, Jedi Knight". I'll be a nice person and
> slack the line so you can spit out the hook now... ;-)
Heh heh, thanks, but nah, I'm no Jedi. I'm probably just an "attacking
clone."
>
> >I did forget to add AMH and BMH, and (to express my inner Rimmer,) BSC,
> >SSC, but BFD. ;-)
>
> You're a Superconducting SuperCollider? That *is* a BFD!
>
Better call the NRC PDQ!
-Floyd
Socrates
>
>
>"Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D." wrote:
>>
>> INTELLIGENT DESIGN
>> It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
>> popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
>> their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
>> the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
>> home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
>> are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
>> and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
>> Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
>> blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
>>
>> Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
>> drnj...@socal.rr.com
>> www.dr-newton-joseph.com
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately for the good doctor, this line of reasoning ignores the
>fact that supposedly legitimate "scientific" investigations, like SETI
>(that is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) also claim that
>one can develop tests for deciding whether something is the result of
>intelligent design or not. SETI researchers are, generally speaking,
>taken seriously and given funds to conduct such research. Intelligent
>Design advocates, like Dembski, are attempting to develop similar tests
>for other observables.
Big surprise. Pagano uses an argument from left field.
SETI is investigating that which would be separate from natural occurences ..
indicating a specific being is sending out a signal.
Fools, like pagano and Dembski, seek to prove the natural occurences have the
designer.
>
>In addition living biological systems very plainly have the mark of
>complexity and design.
No, they don't or else it wouldn't be debatable!
The appearance of design is so unmistakable and
>unavoidable that the language of design can often be found in the
>secular evolutionary literature.
It is not unmistakable, because only a few fundamentalist religious zealots
bellow about it!
Nonetheless Richard Dawkins asserts
>that the very plain appearance of design in biology is an illusion
>simply because neoDarwinism, in principle, is able to dispense with an
>intelligent agent.
The existance of design is a personal conclusion/opinion that is not supported
by ANY evidence!
This is the claim, but the hard evidence is
>virtually non existent.
Only because you conveniently stick you head back up your ass when someone
offers evidence!
Steven J.
> "Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D." wrote:
> >
> > INTELLIGENT DESIGN
> > It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
> > popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
> > their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
> > the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
> > home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
> > are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
> > and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
> > Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
> > blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
> >
> > Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
> > drnj...@socal.rr.com
> > www.dr-newton-joseph.com
>
>
> Pagano replies:
> Unfortunately for the good doctor, this line of reasoning ignores the
> fact that supposedly legitimate "scientific" investigations, like SETI
> (that is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) also claim that
> one can develop tests for deciding whether something is the result of
> intelligent design or not. SETI researchers are, generally speaking,
> taken seriously and given funds to conduct such research. Intelligent
> Design advocates, like Dembski, are attempting to develop similar tests
> for other observables.
>
can't explain how this happened, so we're attributing it to little
green men from alpha Centauri." Furthermore, SETI researchers tend to
be more open than ID theorists to explanations in terms of phenomena
either known to exist, or suspected to exist on the basis of
established theories. See, for example, the discovery of pulsars. I
don't see Dembski, much less Behe, racking his brain *trying* to find
an explanation for irreducible complexity, or specified complexity,
that does *not* require intelligent design.
There's a reason for this. "Extra-terrestrial intelligence" is
implicitly assumed to be natural. If they exist, they are not
omnipotent, and they are not beyond comprehension. The absence of
evidence is, indeed, sometimes explained away by noting that we cannot
be sure of the psychologies or technological capabilities of ETIs, but
plausible explanations in terms of known phenomena are *not* explained
away by saying "maybe the ETIs just choose to mimic the results of
natural phenomena" or "we are entitled to *no* assumptions about ETI
abilities or motives," or "evidence does not speak for itself, but
must be interpreted in light of prior ETI/no ETI assumptions."
"Supernatural causes" is a deliberately evasive explanation. It
implies a cause, while also providing an excuse for the impossibility
of testing for, or falsifying that cause (since there are *no* limits
to what form "supernatural causes" can take, or what effects they can
produce). Science cannot investigate anything without the _a priori_
and unquestionable assumption that evidence actually means something.
>
> In addition living biological systems very plainly have the mark of
> complexity and design. The appearance of design is so unmistakable and
> unavoidable that the language of design can often be found in the
> secular evolutionary literature. Nonetheless Richard Dawkins asserts
> that the very plain appearance of design in biology is an illusion
> simply because neoDarwinism, in principle, is able to dispense with an
> intelligent agent. This is the claim, but the hard evidence is
> virtually non existent. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a
> single nascent structure demonstrating that this purely naturalistic
> process is capable of the creation of such complexity. Furthermore even
> if it was capable there is no evidence of any mechanism which could
> integrate such systems together. Likewise evolutionists have yet to
> discover a single genetic mechanism of integrating random nucleotide
> copying errors progressively into the genome.
>
Do you have a macro key that just prints this entire paragraph?
Nascent structures, assuming that phrase means anything definite,
certainly exist in the fossil record. The mechanism for integrating
random mutations (drop that phrase "nucleotide copying errors;" it's
wordy and, I suspect, a deliberate ploy to understate the variety and
power of mutations) is natural selection; it has been observed at
work. The "mechanism which could integrate such systems together"
sentence is bafflegab; you start with a working system, and NS
eliminates any variants which are not themselves working systems.
That can be put, you start with "integrated systems," mutations which
don't kill the mutant must result in "integrated systems," and
accumulation of mutations which don't kill the mutant leave only
"integrated systems" much altered from their "nascent" form.
>
> The good doctor may claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence
> of absence. However given that evolutionary prehistory, particularly
> the last 600 million years, is purported to be one of world wide
> ubiquitious transformational change such evidence should be also
> ubiquitous. It is completely absent.
>
The only thing completely absent is your aquaintance with the
evidence, and rational thought about it.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
-- Steven J.
satyr
>
>
>"Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D." wrote:
>>
>> INTELLIGENT DESIGN
>> It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
>> popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
>> their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
>> the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
>> home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
>> are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
>> and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
>> Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
>> blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
>>
>> Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
>> drnj...@socal.rr.com
>> www.dr-newton-joseph.com
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately for the good doctor, this line of reasoning ignores the
>fact that supposedly legitimate "scientific" investigations, like SETI
>(that is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) also claim that
>one can develop tests for deciding whether something is the result of
>intelligent design or not. SETI researchers are, generally speaking,
>taken seriously and given funds to conduct such research. Intelligent
>Design advocates, like Dembski, are attempting to develop similar tests
>for other observables.
The fundamental difference is that SETI is looking for electromagnetic waves.
We are quite familiar with this phenomenon and know that it naturally lacks one
crucial property; it does not reproduce. It is thus not capable of evolution by
Darwinian means. The only way we know to induce a meaningful pattern in
electromagnetic waves is by the application of human(like) intelligence.
But to assume the same thing is true for animals is to beg the question. There
is proposed (and with considerable experimental support) a theory to explain
evolution in animals and that theory does not apply to electromagnetic waves.
Nor has natural evolution been observed in electromagnetic waves as it has in
animals.
>In addition living biological systems very plainly have the mark of
>complexity and design.
Could you please re-beg the question?
> The appearance of design is so unmistakable and
>unavoidable that the language of design can often be found in the
>secular evolutionary literature.
And thus the argument degenerates to semantics. If it pleases you I will
stipulate that animals are designed, but will continue to dispute that they are
a product of *intelligent* design. They are designed by random mutation and
natural selection via survival of the fittest and the interaction of the
environment.
> Nonetheless Richard Dawkins asserts
>that the very plain appearance of design in biology is an illusion
>simply because neoDarwinism, in principle, is able to dispense with an
>intelligent agent.
What part of Darwin's original theory (as opposed to 'neoDarwinism', whatever
that is) requires an intelligent agent?
As for Dawkins' (and modern biology's) assertion of non-intelligent design, it
is not based on some theistic homage to neoDarwinism. It is based on detailed
studies which reveal the sequence and mechanism of specific evolutionary events
showing adaption constrained by the limitations of biological evolution. What
you have to explain is why your intelligent designer felt constrained to design
in this highly inefficient manner.
> This is the claim, but the hard evidence is
>virtually non existent. There is no evidence in the fossil record of a
>single nascent structure demonstrating that this purely naturalistic
>process is capable of the creation of such complexity.
I can't imagine what evidence you would ever hope to find in the fossil record
which would demonstrate this. What the fossil record (and countless other
pieces of evidence) demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt is that all life on
Earth evolved through a lineage of common ancestors. What you have to explain
is why your intelligent designer would choose to design this way.
> Furthermore even
>if it was capable there is no evidence of any mechanism which could
>integrate such systems together.
Such systems as what? Mutation and natural selection?
> Likewise evolutionists have yet to
>discover a single genetic mechanism of integrating random nucleotide
>copying errors progressively into the genome.
I am not sure I understand this comment. Are you saying that there is no way a
mutated gene can be spread throughout a population? There are countless
examples of this happening. Are you saying a mutated gene would magically be
corrected at the next cell division? That is a phenomenon for which there is no
mechanism.
>The good doctor may claim that the absence of evidence is not evidence
>of absence. However given that evolutionary prehistory, particularly
>the last 600 million years, is purported to be one of world wide
>ubiquitious transformational change such evidence should be also
>ubiquitous. It is completely absent.
It is?!?! 600 million years ago the most complex plant was algae and the most
complex animal was a worm. The fossil record provides a clear (if not complete)
record of the transitions which led to the diversity and complexity we see
today.
Andy Groves
Tony, you are participating in a number of threads where people are
showing that you are quite wrong. Your only defense at present is to
fall back on the ambiguity of your defintion of "nascent structure",
which turns out to be biologically nonsensical.
> Furthermore even
> if it was capable there is no evidence of any mechanism which could
> integrate such systems together. Likewise evolutionists have yet to
> discover a single genetic mechanism of integrating random nucleotide
> copying errors progressively into the genome.
What do you mean by "integrating:" copying errors "progressively" into
the genome? Mutations - whether they are point mutations,
duplications, deletions or transpositions - *are* integrated into the
genome. I have given you an example in the last 10 days of how a
duplication of part of the regulatory region of the Drosophila spp.
bric-a-brac locus leads to a novel pattern of pigmentation of the
abdomen. Do you not bother to read the replies to your posts, or do
you just pretend they don't exist?
Andy
wf...@ptd.net
>
>
>"Dr. Newton Joseph, Ph.D." wrote:
>>
>> INTELLIGENT DESIGN
>> It's understandable to me why the concept of intelligent design is so
>> popular. After all, those who believe in this concept designed something in
>> their lives, and it is their personal experience that they can identify with
>> the concept of intelligent design. Choosing to have children, building a new
>> home, creating a new business, designing a computer program, or a blueprint
>> are all actions of intelligent designers. Certainly Bill Gates, Henry Ford,
>> and Thomas Edison were (is) would be classified as intelligent designers.
>> Intelligent design is a projection of the believers' own experience onto a
>> blank screen which they call "God the intelligent designer.
>>
>> Newton Joseph,Ph.D.
>> drnj...@socal.rr.com
>> www.dr-newton-joseph.com
>
>
> Pagano replies:
>Unfortunately for the good doctor, this line of reasoning ignores the
>fact that supposedly legitimate "scientific" investigations, like SETI
>(that is, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) also claim that
>one can develop tests for deciding whether something is the result of
>intelligent design or not. SETI researchers are, generally speaking,
>taken seriously and given funds to conduct such research. Intelligent
>Design advocates, like Dembski, are attempting to develop similar tests
>for other observables.
unfortunately for pagano, there is a fatal flaw in the argument from
design
intelligent designers tell us we can tell something was designed
because in every instance where complexity is involved, there has been
intelligence
the fatal flaw in this argument from analogy is that in every case,
only natural forces have been involved in creating complexity. when
the pyramids were built, they used ramps. when we build a 747, we use
machine tools, etc. all involve natural forces.
intelligent designers, though, say natural forces werent involved.
they say 'godddidit'. the question is: if complexity requires
intelligence, why doesnt it require natural forces? if the first part
of their analogy is true, why isnt the 2nd part?
answer: because its theology, not science or philosophy.
>
>In addition living biological systems very plainly have the mark of
>complexity and design. The appearance of design is so unmistakable and
>unavoidable that the language of design can often be found in the
>secular evolutionary literature.
except this, again, leads to a fatal flaw: biological systems that we
see ALWAYS involve natural forces. without exception. no 'goddidit' at
all.
There is no evidence in the fossil record of a
>single nascent structure demonstrating that this purely naturalistic
>process is capable of the creation of such complexity.
there is no process we've ever seen involving intelligence where
natural forces weren't used. ever. not one.
Furthermore even
>if it was capable there is no evidence of any mechanism which could
>integrate such systems together. Likewise evolutionists have yet to
>discover a single genetic mechanism of integrating random nucleotide
>copying errors progressively into the genome.
and how do intelligent designers say this happened, even though their
own argument REQUIRES naturalism to be logically consistent?
they dont.
Jack Sullivan
The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
T-squares and drafting tables.
"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
you."
Jack Sullivan
TF
>The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
>can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
>weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
>evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
>shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
>happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
>T-squares and drafting tables.
>
>"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
>simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
>you."
>
>Jack Sullivan
>
But Jack,
The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
about life. The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
"bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
happed" or "given enough time everything is possible". That really sounds
naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
TF
Jon Fleming
>Jack Sullivan wrote in message ...
>>The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
>>can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
>>weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
>>evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
>>shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
>>happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
>>T-squares and drafting tables.
>>
>>"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
>>simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
>>you."
>>
>>Jack Sullivan
>>
>
>But Jack,
>
>The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
>about life. The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
>puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
>"bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
>since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
Actually, nobody has established that any such system exists; Behe has
not claimed that any such structure exists (although he comes awfully
close to that claim); and nobody has proposed a system for which
nobody else has proposed a possible evolutionary origin.
>
>I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
>are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
>happed" or "given enough time everything is possible"
You haven't been reading the "evolutionist's" arguments. The more
common arguments are "here is a plausible pathway" or "here is a very
likely pathway and here's the evidence for it)".
> That really sounds
>naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
>evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
>
>TF
>
...
(change nospam to group to email)
Rodjk
You are not going to convince us by showing your ignorance.
Several excellent answers for IC have been shown, and they are not of
the
"we will find an answer later" variety. Why don't you do some research
and find out what real scientist think of Behe and IC. You can start
here:
http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~clare.stevens/behenot.htm
http://www-polisci.mit.edu/bostonreview/BR21.6/orr.html
http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/behe.html
How about starting with a little knowledge about the subject you are
criticising? If the only arguments you have heard from scientist on
the subject of IC are the ones listed above, you have not been
listening.
Rodjk #613
>
> TF
Bobby D. Bryant
<tero@remthis_yahoo.com> wrote:
> The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more
> and more about life. The argument from irreducible complexity is a one
> that really is puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain
> structures (e.g. "bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding
> one piece at a time, since the structore doesn't work until it's
> complete.
Except that it's *your* hypothesis that things have to "evolve slowly
adding one piece at a time".
You should look at some pictures of natural arches and balanced stones.
Many of those would collapse if you chopped a big section out. But
they weren't built by a process reverse to some hypothetical
dismantlement; they were built by the mindless erosion of surrounding
material.
Even if someone ever demonstrates an "irreducibly complex" biological
structure, who's to say that it evolved slowly by adding one piece at a
time instead of, say, evolving on some sort of "scaffolding" that was
"eroded away" later?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
TomS
stated..."
The argument from irreducible complexity is puzzling from just
about any point of view.
For example, what if one of these structures evolved, not by
*adding*, but by *subtrating*? (The part about "slowly" is, of
course, totally irrelevant.) You do know, don't you, that evolution
does not always proceed by addition? For example, how blind
creatures that live in caves evolved by losing sight; and parasites
have evolved by losing many of their functions; and, for that matter,
humans have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C. Outside the
world of life, natural arches, such as found in the (USA) Arches
National Park, have come about by erosion of rock.
Secondly, there are a number of papers in the literature which
explain how some of the standard examples of "irreducibly complex"
features could come about. You assert that the "bacterial motor"
*could not* have come about by evolution. Do you have some evidence
for that? It is a *strong* claim that it is *impossible*.
Also, there are such possibilities as that the function of the
precursor was different from the present-day result.
But, most interesting of all to me is the idea that there was
a designer who (or which) designed the bacterial "motor" to make
bacteria so effective. On the other hand, there was a designer
who (or which) designed the mammalian immune system to work against
the effectiveness of the bacteria. This tells me, if someone is a
believer in both of these designers, that there is a plurality of
designs, working in conflict with one another, and that, therefore,
there are many designers. Of course, that is totally consistent
with the idea of nature-gods. How it is consistent with monotheism
is beyond me.
It seems to me that the argument from Irreducible Complexity
is puzzling from a *Christian* point of view.
Tom S.
George Acton
>
> Jack Sullivan wrote in message ...
> >The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
> >can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
> >weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
> >evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
> >shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
> >happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
> >T-squares and drafting tables.
> >
> >"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
> >simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
> >you."
> >
> >Jack Sullivan
> >
>
> But Jack,
>
> The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
> about life.
This is one of the more fraudulent claims in Behe's book. He pretends
to be motivated by new scientific discoveries, but our understanding of
most of the systems he describes hasn't changed in decades. The
material in his chapter on clotting is that of a lecture handout of
about 1968 or so. The same is true of complement. The rotary
mechanism of flagella is from the 1970's, IIRC.
> The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
> puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
> "bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
> since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
A contributor to t.o., Howard Hershey, has documented that there are
reasonable precursors to flagella. These didn't work as flagella
but were advantageous to the organisms and subject to natural selection.
You could look up his postings on Deja News.
> I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
> are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
> happed" or "given enough time everything is possible". That really sounds
> naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
> evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
How about facing the fact that you've been mislead by a popular book
designed to appeal to Creationists? If he were serious, he'd publish
in scientific journals where he would face scientific scrutiny. No
one knowledgeable in the fields of biochemistry Behe discusses has
been converted to ID Theory, except those with a political or religious
axe to grind.
--George Acton
Jack Sullivan
> >The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
> >can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
> >weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
> >evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
> >shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
> >happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
> >T-squares and drafting tables.
> >
> >"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
> >simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
> >you."
> >
> >Jack Sullivan
> >
>
> But Jack,
>
> The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
> about life.
No it's not. It's coming from the Scientific Creationists hoping to
push religion into the public school science currcula by conveniently
avoiding identifying their Designer as "God." The Federal Court in
Arkansas threw them out when it was acknowledged that they wanted to
teach Christian religion in the schools with God and the Bible
included. This time they're being much craftier.
And I got a laugh from your statement that "ID arguments are coming
from the fact that we are understanding more and more about life." The
ID thesis proposed by Michael Behe is only a rehash of Paley's
discredited argument from analogy. There is no "new knowledge" in the
ID movement. There is only a lot of argument from personal incredulity
designed to snowjob the scientifically undereducated, sprinkled with a
lot of deliberate omissions of fact regarding past scientific work
that makes ID much less of a compelling argument and much more of a
MAYBE. And ID is now being pushed by organizations of Christian
conservatives who bear false witness by making statements that ID is
"science" and is "fact-based." It is neither.
On a final point, while science by consensus doesn't count for much,
evolution is taught in every major college and university in the world
while ID is not. And if you can find a single biologist (other than
the vocal few ID proponents who have an agenda and who lecture and
publish books) who support ID over evolution, let me know their names.
Also, doing a recent online search in NIH's PubMed, I found not a
single scientific paper on ID.
The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
> puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
> "bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
> since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
Oh please! I'm not going to do your homework for you, as apparently
you haven't done it yourself. But if you swallow this argument, you
haven't reviewed what's been argued and written about this over the
past years. Read Joplin and Shanks, Russel Doolittle, Kenneth Miller.
Learn some counter-arguments, come back and we'll talk.
>
> I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
> are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
> happed" or "given enough time everything is possible". That really sounds
> naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
> evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
>
> TF
You just made a totally unfounded and unsupported assertion.
Sure, ID hides behind the "God of the Gaps," depending on the fact
that science can't yet explain EVERYTHING. But give us a break! The
structure and basic function of DNA was only worked out 50 years ago!
So maybe I can only give you an outline of how the bacterial flagellum
evolved. But it did. These Gaps have existed for hundreds of years but
one by one science has closed them. And there is no reason to asume
that IDists have suddenly uncovered a Gap that can't eventually be
explained by other than resorting to unknown mystical entities
operating by unknown mechanisms for obscure motives at unknown times
in the past.
Read up on the flagellum. Imagine a structure that combines 3
different functions, built up layer by layer by 50+ proteins encoded
by 14 operons. The chance of all this POOFING into existence as a
working whole are astronomical. It's easay to see why Behe used it as
one of his icons of IC. But if the 3 separate functions and their
operons evolved separately and then became linked and superimposed in
an act of parsimony, the odds are much more workable. Study up, TF,
and let's talk more about this.
Jack Sullivan
Mark VandeWettering
> The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more
> and more about life. The argument from irreducible complexity is
> a one that really is puzzling from evolutionist point of view.
> Since certain structures (e.g. "bacterial motor") cannot have
> evolved slowly adding one piece at a time, since the structore
> doesn't work until it's complete.
Intelligent Design makes the assumption that the "purpose" or "function"
of a particular system remains constant over time, and does not recognize
the evolutionary pressure that REMOVES parts. The flagella that we see
are not evolved from simpler mechanisms, but from more complex ones. They
also did not originally serve as propulsion.
> I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
> are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
> happed" or "given enough time everything is possible".
Both of these are strawmen. In many cases, biochemists actually have
been able to derive the evolutionary paths of certain IC systems. And no
scientist argues "given enough time everything is possible".
> That really sounds
> naive and gullible.
Yes, they do. Too bad they are just strawmen arguments.
> How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
> evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
Because anyone who claims they can't evolve as evolution theory predicts
is just ignorant of how evolution works.
Mark
> TF
--
/* __ __ __ ____ __*/float m,a,r,k,v;main(i){for(;r<4;r+=.1){for(a=0;
/*| \/ |\ \ / /\ \ / /*/a<4;a+=.06){k=v=0;for(i=99;--i&&k*k+v*v<4;)m=k*k
/*| |\/| | \ V / \ \/\/ / */-v*v+a-2,v=2*k*v+r-2,k=m;putchar("X =."[i&3]);}
/*|_| |_ark\_/ande\_/\_/ettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org> */puts("");}}
Jack Sullivan
> TF wrote:
> >
> > Jack Sullivan wrote in message ...
> > >The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
> > >can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
> > >weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
> > >evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
> > >shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
> > >happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
> > >T-squares and drafting tables.
> > >
> > >"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
> > >simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
> > >you."
> > >
> > >Jack Sullivan
> > >
> >
> > But Jack,
> >
> > The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
> > about life.
>
> This is one of the more fraudulent claims in Behe's book. He pretends
> to be motivated by new scientific discoveries, but our understanding of
> most of the systems he describes hasn't changed in decades. The
> material in his chapter on clotting is that of a lecture handout of
> about 1968 or so.
There is a large body of scientific work by scientists like Iwanaka
that push the vertebrate blood clotting cascade back to a simple
defense system against bacterial invasion in invertebrates like the
arthropod Horseshoe Crab and the lobster. It's the same basic proteins
(serine zymogens) as vertebrates have but with many fewer layers in
the cascade. Why? Because the hemolymph blood-precursor in
invertebrates doesn't involve pumping blood under pressure as you find
in the chordates. It just surrounds the invading bacteria in a clot.
In chordates with circulatory systems you need the cascade to amplify
the response and speed up clotting. And the proteins were all added
via duplication of an ancestral gene. (After over 300 million years
since the arthropods diverged from the line that led to the chordates,
these proteins still show an amazing 34+% homology with our own. (Behe
makes not a single reference to any of this in Darwin's Black Box, I'm
sure preferring to cast his "golly, gee whizz!" explanation in the
best possible light.
The rotary
> mechanism of flagella is from the 1970's, IIRC.
The flagellum involves 3 separate systems that are linked and
superimposed. The entire flagellum is built up in discrete stages from
50+ proteins encoded by 14 operons. While the odds are astronomical of
the entire thing being POOFED into existence as one complete device,
the evolution of the 3 separate functions and their operons, followed
by an act of parsimony that hooked them together, is far more easily
rationalized. The flagellum, like the clotting cascade, evolved in
little steps and was not designed.
>
> > The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
> > puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
> > "bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
> > since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
>
>
> > I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
> > are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
> > happed" or "given enough time everything is possible". That really sounds
> > naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
> > evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
>
> How about facing the fact that you've been mislead by a popular book
> designed to appeal to Creationists? If he were serious, he'd publish
> in scientific journals where he would face scientific scrutiny. No
> one knowledgeable in the fields of biochemistry Behe discusses has
> been converted to ID Theory, except those with a political or religious
> axe to grind.
> --George Acton
Behe attacks molecular evolution (p. 185-6): "Molecular evolution is
not based on scientific authority. There is no publication in the
scientific literature...that describes how molecular evolution of any
real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have
occurred. ... Since no one knows molecular evolution by direct
experience, and since there is no authority on which to base claims of
knowledge, it can be truly said...the assertion of Darwinian molecular
evolution is merely bluster." But he then ignores landmark work on
acquisitive evolution in Klebsiella by RP Mortlock (J Mol Evol
9:181-90 (1977) and Clark and Rod in E. coli (Ibid., 25:151-8 (1987)
and makes no mention of either they or their work and how his
statement directly contradicts it.
Behe's lack of references to the work of others in the areas of blood
clotting and molecular evolution (especially in the very journal he
directly attacks, the Journal of Molecular Evolution) is
unprofessional for a professional scientist. And his deliberate
overuse of the argument from personal incredulity made me want to go
fire up my snow blower. He published in the popular book arena because
no referee for a peer-reviewed journal would have given his ideas, his
presentation or his manuscript anything more than a short flight into
the trash can.
Jack Sullivan
wf...@ptd.net
>Jack Sullivan wrote in message ...
>>The APPEARANCE of design in complex systems like cells and galaxies
>>can easily be confused with the IDEA of Intelligent Design by the
>>weak-minded and gullible. "It's obviously too complicated to have
>>evolved, so therefore it had to be designed" speaks only of our
>>shortsightedness and cultural programming to grasp things only
>>happening in relatively brief timespans by trained specialists with
>>T-squares and drafting tables.
>>
>>"If you can't comprehend how it could have happened all by itself from
>>simpler origins, then Intelligent Design is the dogma du jour for
>>you."
>>
>>Jack Sullivan
>>
>
>But Jack,
>
>The ID arguments are coming from the fact we are understanding more and more
>about life. The argument from irreducible complexity is a one that really is
>puzzling from evolutionist point of view. Since certain structures (e.g.
>"bacterial motor") cannot have evolved slowly adding one piece at a time,
>since the structore doesn't work until it's complete.
irreducible complexity is a 'god of the gaps' argument. creationists
are saying since we dont know how EVERYTHING evolved, then nothing
evolved. they still have to confront the fact evolution is observed,
and even mike behe admits it is the source of speciation.
the fatal flaw in design theory is its propaganda. its adherents say
we always see intelligence where we have complexity. they ignore the
fact we ALWAYS see the use of natural forces when intelligence is at
work. when bees build a hive, they do so using natural forces. when
humans build a 747, we use levers, ramps, etc. no magic at all. design
theorists say that magic must be involved, though they dont say why,
even though their own logic requires it.
>
>I find evolutionist counter arguments very feeble on this point. Namely they
>are of type "when we understand these things more, we'll understand how it
>happed" or "given enough time everything is possible". That really sounds
>naive and gullible. How about facing the fact that these structures cannot
>evolve as evolution theory predicts and start with a new theory.
>
why? evolution is observed. what is better than observation? i realize
creationists hate science, but to say we must toss out observation in
favor of religion is ridiculous.