the evolutionists are at it again
John D
Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
--
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
- and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard Feynman
-------------------------------------------------------
If you can unmunge the return address, you may email me
ZenIsWhen
>
>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>
Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
information?
Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
and unverified claims.
Bad journalism does NOT mean bad science!
WND is NOT about truth!
It's about anything reich wing - from politics to religion!
A right wing rag pretending to be a news source!
Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
scientific information!
ZenIsWhen
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself
- and you are the easiest person to fool." -- Richard Feynman
Of course the easiest way to fool your self is when you don't have ANY facts
or evidence (religion and creationism) .. as opposed to when there are tons
anad tons of facts . science and evolution!
William
D) wrote:
>
>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>
>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
Sites that use terms like "ape-man" and "missing link" or the
"Piltdown Man" (a fraud 80 years ago uncovered by SCIENCE) are
generally talking about creationism and NOT science - this site is no
exception.
William
The Mad Scribbler
(ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>Bad journalism does NOT mean bad science!
But when bad journalism is based upon bad science, who do you blame?
The reporter for the Time article probably doesn't know a whole lot
about anthropology, he/she would be getting information from a
scientist and then publishing that same information.
John D
Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>, johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>
>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>
>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>
>
>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>information?
Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution or to stay on
the political left. So we choose sources for our information that do
not misrepresent reality. You can have your opinion of it, but don't
expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>and unverified claims.
Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
evolution myth.
>Bad journalism does NOT mean bad science!
You didn't even bother to read the article, I see.
>WND is NOT about truth!
>It's about anything reich wing - from politics to religion!
>A right wing rag pretending to be a news source!
Only other leftist loonies would agree with you.
>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>scientific information!
Like Time?
ZenIsWhen
>Furrfu, didja hear what ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) said on
>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>
>>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>,
> johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>>
>>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>>
>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>>
>>
>>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>>information?
>
>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution or to stay on
>the political left.
Typical reich wing arrogance.
So we choose sources for our information that do
>not misrepresent reality.
The reich wing (nut daily) is far from reality.
You can have your opinion of it, but don't
>expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
>attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
I expect intelligent people to use reason, logic and facts .. not reich wing
political opinions.
>
>>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>>and unverified claims.
>
>Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
>journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
>evolution myth.
Oh gee .... and I don't suppose you have any support for that claim from
ignorance!
Of course not ... because it's a delusional fantasy .. along with your
blindness about evolution.
>
>>Bad journalism does NOT mean bad science!
>
>You didn't even bother to read the article, I see.
>
>>WND is NOT about truth!
>>It's about anything reich wing - from politics to religion!
>>A right wing rag pretending to be a news source!
>
>Only other leftist loonies would agree with you.
>
Actually, I try to go with the flow of (what I consider) reason, logic, facts
and rationality .. things with are blatantly missing from Wing Nut Daily.
>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>scientific information!
>
>Like Time?
>
You have a reading comprehension problem too, I see.
The Mad Scribbler
(ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution or to stay on
>>the political left.
>
>Typical reich wing arrogance.
Resorting to name calling when you can not come up with a reasonable
argument to support your claims is the first sign that you are losing
an argument and *know it*.
> So we choose sources for our information that do
>>not misrepresent reality.
>The reich wing (nut daily) is far from reality.
Further evidence...
> You can have your opinion of it, but don't
>>expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
>>attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
>
>
>I expect intelligent people to use reason, logic and facts .. not reich wing
>political opinions.
More name calling. Where are your logical reasonable facts to support
your argument?
>>>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>>>and unverified claims.
>>
>>Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
>>journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
>>evolution myth.
>
>Oh gee .... and I don't suppose you have any support for that claim from
>ignorance!
>Of course not ... because it's a delusional fantasy .. along with your
>blindness about evolution.
Where is your support? Shaky at best, pure theoretical fantasy at
worst.
>>>WND is NOT about truth!
>>>It's about anything reich wing - from politics to religion!
>>>A right wing rag pretending to be a news source!
And you know this how?
>Actually, I try to go with the flow of (what I consider) reason, logic, facts
>and rationality .. things with are blatantly missing from Wing Nut Daily.
Again, you make claims with no basis, no supporting evidence and
expect people to blindly accept what you say. Sounds kind of like the
science that you support.
Matt Silberstein
from mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad Scribbler):
>On Tue, 31 Jul 2001 06:39:10 GMT, ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com
>(ZenIsWhen) wrote:
>
>>>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>>>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution or to stay on
>>>the political left.
>>
>>Typical reich wing arrogance.
>
>Resorting to name calling when you can not come up with a reasonable
>argument to support your claims is the first sign that you are losing
>an argument and *know it*.
I guess you missed the use of "the political left" to poison the well.
>> So we choose sources for our information that do
>>>not misrepresent reality.
>>The reich wing (nut daily) is far from reality.
>
>Further evidence...
Or a further comment on the "left" remark.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.
Matt Silberstein
from johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>Furrfu, didja hear what ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) said on
>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>
>>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>, johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>>
>>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>>
>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>>
>>
>>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>>information?
>
>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution
Can you show that you have some actual knowledge about evolutionary
biology? Can you provide a valid scientific definition of evolution?
Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
Descent? Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
theory of evolution? None of this requires you to agree with anything,
it just asks you to show you know about what you claim to object to.
> or to stay on
>the political left. So we choose sources for our information that do
>not misrepresent reality.
Have you attempted to compare what your sources claim about
evolutionary biology with biology sources. Can you, from your reading
of these other sources, accurately describe what biology claims?
> You can have your opinion of it, but don't
>expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
>attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
>
>>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>>and unverified claims.
>
>Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
>journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
>evolution myth.
Would you care to provide some evidence of this occurring?
[snip]
>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>scientific information!
>
>Like Time?
No, like _Nature_ or _Science_ or a good quality college textbook.
John D
on Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:40:47 -0400:
>In alt.religion.christian I read <3b66490...@news.supernews.com>
>from johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>
>>Furrfu, didja hear what ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) said on
>>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>>
>>>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>, johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>>>information?
>>
>>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution
>
>Can you show that you have some actual knowledge about evolutionary
>biology?
Of course.
> Can you provide a valid scientific definition of evolution?
Which version, micro- or macro-? Can you define it yourself?
There's the simple "speciation through variation and selection".
There's the more philosophical "naturalistic origin story".
Most simply, there's "how we got here according to standard science".
Anyway, the scientific definition of evolution changes whenever it
becomes apparent in a given discussion that the theory's holes are
showing.
>Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
>Descent?
Evolutionists claim genetics and the fossil record support the
evolution myth. Science, per se, claims nothing.
>Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
>theory of evolution?
One is a myth, the other a theory.
>None of this requires you to agree with anything,
>it just asks you to show you know about what you claim to object to.
>
>> or to stay on
>>the political left. So we choose sources for our information that do
>>not misrepresent reality.
>
>Have you attempted to compare what your sources claim about
>evolutionary biology with biology sources. Can you, from your reading
>of these other sources, accurately describe what biology claims?
Yes, and yes.
>> You can have your opinion of it, but don't
>>expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
>>attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
>>
>>>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>>>and unverified claims.
>>
>>Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
>>journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
>>evolution myth.
>
>Would you care to provide some evidence of this occurring?
I gave reference to articles demonstrating it at the beginning of the
thread. They have a book on sale that you should examine. It may be
available in a library soon.
>>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>>scientific information!
>>
>>Like Time?
>
>No, like _Nature_ or _Science_ or a good quality college textbook.
I was just at a conference where two speakers showed us their articles
which _Nature_ rejected, not because the articles advocated
creationism, but because their results pointed too clearly toward
intelligent design. They described the efforts of a colleague to
strictly avoid anything too "non-naturalistic" in order to get his
astrophysics articles published. With a new editor, the publication
may start showing fairness.
I'd like to see a college biology text that clearly proves evolution,
rather than merely asserting it. The only one I found that tried to
give a legitimate account for evolution (Futuyama, IIRC) failed.
John D
>In article <3b66490...@news.supernews.com>, johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>Furrfu, didja hear what ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) said on
>>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>>
>>>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>,
>> johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>>>information?
>>
>>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution or to stay on
>>the political left.
>
>Typical reich wing arrogance.
>
It's the only response typical left-wing arrogance deserves.
>
> So we choose sources for our information that do
>>not misrepresent reality.
>
>The reich wing (nut daily) is far from reality.
>
So you claim.
>
> You can have your opinion of it, but don't
>>expect intelligent people to respect you for making non-substantial
>>attacks on people and organizations that undermine your positions.
>
>
>I expect intelligent people to use reason, logic and facts .. not reich wing
>political opinions.
Whereas left-wing political opinions are valid by default?
>
>>
>>>Scientists even chastise Time for jumping the gun and presenting unclaimed,
>>>and unverified claims.
>>
>>Unimpressive, given how scientists have regularly taken advantage of
>>journalists' ignorance to dupe non-scientists into believing the
>>evolution myth.
>
>Oh gee .... and I don't suppose you have any support for that claim from
>ignorance!
>Of course not ... because it's a delusional fantasy .. along with your
>blindness about evolution.
My inabilty to see the validity of this "Emperor's New Clothes"-style
theory does not make me blind.
>>
>>>Bad journalism does NOT mean bad science!
>>
>>You didn't even bother to read the article, I see.
>>
>>>WND is NOT about truth!
>>>It's about anything reich wing - from politics to religion!
>>>A right wing rag pretending to be a news source!
>>
>>Only other leftist loonies would agree with you.
>>
>
>Actually, I try to go with the flow of (what I consider) reason, logic, facts
>and rationality .. things with are blatantly missing from Wing Nut Daily.
Exactly my point. You go with what you consider to be reason, logic,
etc. Truly rational people prefer those things to be actual, which
means we discount the reason, logic, facts and rationality of persons
who start a response by arbirtarily dismissing the article for being
in a "reich-wing rag".
ZenIsWhen
Mindless claim!
What, then, IS the scientific definition of evolution?
Even if it changes, you must have SOME idea.
What holes?
Holes can only be apparent IF there is surronding SUBSTANCE!
Claiming holes only means you make claims - can you scientificially support
your claim? - or, as usual, is it just an opinion from lack of education?
>
>>Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
>>Descent?
>
>Evolutionists claim genetics and the fossil record support the
>evolution myth. Science, per se, claims nothing.
Evolutionists have MANY directions for evidence to support evolution.
YOU create a strawman - which only has a minimal relationiship with on the
truth, and then turn a blind eye even to your own strawman.
>
>>Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
>>theory of evolution?
>
>One is a myth, the other a theory.
Ya know .. you're looking more and more like just a mindless bot.
Come back later, Pinnochio.
Matt Silberstein
<3b6c271a....@news.supernews.com> from
johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>Furrfu, didja hear what Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> said
>on Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:40:47 -0400:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read <3b66490...@news.supernews.com>
>>from johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>>
>>>Furrfu, didja hear what ZenI...@NOSPAM.yahoo.com (ZenIsWhen) said on
>>>Wed, 25 Jul 2001 16:11:41 GMT:
>>>
>>>>In article <3b5eed1...@news.supernews.com>, johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=23765
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Why would want go to "Wing Nut Daily" to find out any real, unbiased
>>>>information?
>>>
>>>Some of us have no skill at maintaining the deliberate ignorance and
>>>avoidance of reason necessary for belief in evolution
>>
>>Can you show that you have some actual knowledge about evolutionary
>>biology?
>
>Of course.
Then do so.
>> Can you provide a valid scientific definition of evolution?
>
>Which version, micro- or macro-? Can you define it yourself?
Bzzzt, wrong answer. Biologists do not define micro and macro
evolution differently. Some biologists do distinguish these in some
cases, but the basic definition of evolution remains.
>There's the simple "speciation through variation and selection".
Nope. That is not a definition of evolution. I asked for a valid
scientific definition. I will give you one more chance.
>There's the more philosophical "naturalistic origin story".
Nope, again not a valid scientific definition of evolution.
>Most simply, there's "how we got here according to standard science".
Nope, wrong yet again. It is sad that you profess to object to
something and yet it seems you really know little about it.
>Anyway, the scientific definition of evolution changes whenever it
>becomes apparent in a given discussion that the theory's holes are
>showing.
Yet again wrong but you are free to provide evidence that supports
this accusation. You can (well I can, but I know the subject a bit) a
simple one sentence definition of evolution.
>>Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
>>Descent?
>
>Evolutionists claim genetics and the fossil record support the
>evolution myth. Science, per se, claims nothing.
Evolutionary biologists (do you call people gravitationists?) do claim
these. Can you explain what these biologists say about genetics
supports Common Descent? And can you name the other major line of
evidence that supports Common Descent? (Hint: Darwin talked about this
one.)
>>Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
>>theory of evolution?
>
>One is a myth, the other a theory.
IOW you can't actually do so: you have been bluffing about your
knowledge of evolutionary biology. And, for your information, theories
in science are the highest level, not the lowest. Theories explain
facts.
>>None of this requires you to agree with anything,
>>it just asks you to show you know about what you claim to object to.
>>
>>> or to stay on
>>>the political left. So we choose sources for our information that do
>>>not misrepresent reality.
>>
>>Have you attempted to compare what your sources claim about
>>evolutionary biology with biology sources. Can you, from your reading
>>of these other sources, accurately describe what biology claims?
>
>Yes, and yes.
Then try again to do so. I have not seen any evidence so far of this.
You have misrepresented what biologists actually say about evolution
which strongly suggests you have only read the creationist versions of
science.
[snip]
>>>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>>>scientific information!
>>>
>>>Like Time?
>>
>>No, like _Nature_ or _Science_ or a good quality college textbook.
>
>I was just at a conference where two speakers showed us their articles
>which _Nature_ rejected, not because the articles advocated
>creationism, but because their results pointed too clearly toward
>intelligent design.
Where can I see these articles? If someone has actual evidence of such
rejection I would like to see it. I am sorry, but I can't just take
your word for this. I am sure there are plenty of places on the web
where they can get their articles published.
>They described the efforts of a colleague to
>strictly avoid anything too "non-naturalistic" in order to get his
>astrophysics articles published. With a new editor, the publication
>may start showing fairness.
I agree that scientists should avoid non-naturalistic claims in their
articles, science is a methodological naturalistic endeavor. Asserting
X did it, where X is undefined is not science. If they have
independent evidence of some Intelligent Entity with the necessary
abilities at the appropriate time and place, then they should get
their article published. What question did these astrophysicists
propose non-naturalistic solutions for?
>I'd like to see a college biology text that clearly proves evolution,
>rather than merely asserting it. The only one I found that tried to
>give a legitimate account for evolution (Futuyama, IIRC) failed.
You won't see "proof" of anything in science, science does not deal in
proof. You will fine plenty of evidence if you bother to look. Can you
understand any of the articles in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology?
Have you looked at a real college level biology textbook?
Craig Chilton
John D <johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net> wrote:
> Expose on bad journalism in support of evolution myth:
The obvious and abject ignorance of Off-the-Deep-End
fundamentalists never ceases to amaze me!
They nitpick the living daylights out of the Bible, often
"finding" things that aren't even there.
And as far as evolution goes, the word "omnipotent," as
applied to God, just SAILS right over their heads.
I don't know about THEIR god... the one whom they are
so willing to LIMIT... but MY God would have no problem creating,
and then overseeing the progress of, over the eons, an evolutionary
process. And intervene in it to make adjustments whenever He
chooses.
Science and the Bible are 100% compatible. And the ABUNDANT
fossil records show that this is perhaps the most LIKELY scenario.
-- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com
William
wrote:
>I don't know about THEIR god... the one whom they are
>so willing to LIMIT... but MY God would have no problem creating,
>and then overseeing the progress of, over the eons, an evolutionary
>process. And intervene in it to make adjustments whenever He
>chooses.
The fact of our evolutionary past is plain to see. It follows a
meandering painful path where, until the recent past, the lucky, the
best killers and the best deceivers win out over the unlucky and the
weak. The heritage of this past is with us today and is all too
evidently just below the surface. What sort of god would use this
method to produce sentient beings? What an indictment?
William
The Mad Scribbler
wrote:
>The fact of our evolutionary past is plain to see.
How can you say that when there is NO direct, incontrovertible
evidence to support it? Show me ONE direct link between trilobyte
fossils and dinosaurs, or ONE direct link between apes and man. You
won't be able to, because none exists.
William
Scribbler) wrote:
> ta...@mail.clara.net (William)wrote:
>
>>The fact of our evolutionary past is plain to see.
>
>How can you say that when there is NO direct, incontrovertible
>evidence to support it? Show me ONE direct link between trilobyte
>fossils and dinosaurs
One direct link???
>or ONE direct link between apes and man.
And science does not say there is; it says there is a common ancestor
Seems like you know very little about the science of evolution. I
suggest you go away and read up a bit about it and come back.
William
mdeli
Scribbler) wrote:
evidence to support it? Show me ONE direct link between God and Adam
and Eve, or ONE direct link between God and Jesus. You
won't be able to, because none exists.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
The Mad Scribbler
>How can you say that when there is NO direct, incontrovertible
>evidence to support it? Show me ONE direct link between God and Adam
>and Eve, or ONE direct link between God and Jesus. You
>won't be able to, because none exists.
Easy. Read your Bible. That is, if you even own one.
Sagacious Euphemism
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:26:51 GMT, mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad
Perhaps you know less that you think.
If there were a common ancestor, there would be links (unless you're
talking about some strange version of biological evolution that
differs from the usual one).
Without showing the links, you have only a theory, not a fact.
I believe advocates of the evolution myth no longer talk about the
"missing links" because they have begun to realize that the subject is
one of their greatest weaknesses.
Sagacious Euphemism
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian I read
><3b6c271a....@news.supernews.com> from
>johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>
>>Furrfu, didja hear what Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> said
>>on Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:40:47 -0400:
>>
<snip>
>>> Can you provide a valid scientific definition of evolution?
>>
>>Which version, micro- or macro-? Can you define it yourself?
>
>Bzzzt, wrong answer. Biologists do not define micro and macro
>evolution differently. Some biologists do distinguish these in some
>cases, but the basic definition of evolution remains.
Then we see the basic problem. Micro-evolution (the fact that a
population can have genetic variations over time, sometimes radical
ones) and macro-evolution (the extrapoolation from micro-evolution to
the mechanism for getting all the species we have today) are being
equated. That's just sloppy thinking.
<snip>
>>>Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
>>>Descent?
>>
>>Evolutionists claim genetics and the fossil record support the
>>evolution myth. Science, per se, claims nothing.
>
>Evolutionary biologists (do you call people gravitationists?) do claim
>these. Can you explain what these biologists say about genetics
>supports Common Descent? And can you name the other major line of
>evidence that supports Common Descent? (Hint: Darwin talked about this
>one.)
Geneticists claim that they can measure the commonalities among
species, providing evidence of descent. Darwin was limited to
physical comparison. Neither prove what scientists are claiming they
do, because you don't get the same conclusion if you don't start with
the expected assumptions.
>>>Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
>>>theory of evolution?
>>
>>One is a myth, the other a theory.
>
>IOW you can't actually do so: you have been bluffing about your
>knowledge of evolutionary biology. And, for your information, theories
>in science are the highest level, not the lowest. Theories explain
>facts.
No, I was merely pointing out that the "fact of evolution" is not what
most evolutionists claim it is. That is the myth. The theory is an
attempt to explain facts, which it is not doing very well.
You should read Sagan's "Candle in the Dark". His "baloney detector"
and the "invisible dragon in the garage" bit apply very interestingly
to evolution.
<snipo>
>[snip]
>
>>>>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>>>>scientific information!
>>>>
>>>>Like Time?
>>>
>>>No, like _Nature_ or _Science_ or a good quality college textbook.
>>
>>I was just at a conference where two speakers showed us their articles
>>which _Nature_ rejected, not because the articles advocated
>>creationism, but because their results pointed too clearly toward
>>intelligent design.
>
>Where can I see these articles? If someone has actual evidence of such
>rejection I would like to see it.
Still unpublished, far as I know.
I'll send an email, ask for an update.
>I am sorry, but I can't just take
>your word for this. I am sure there are plenty of places on the web
>where they can get their articles published.
>
>>They described the efforts of a colleague to
>>strictly avoid anything too "non-naturalistic" in order to get his
>>astrophysics articles published. With a new editor, the publication
>>may start showing fairness.
>
>I agree that scientists should avoid non-naturalistic claims in their
>articles, science is a methodological naturalistic endeavor.
This is an inaccurate understanding of science. Science *as practiced
at this time* is methodologically naturalistic. Trying to define it
as such is typical of those who cannot differentiate between their
philosophy and actual science. It was not so in the past, and nothing
inherently requires it to be so.
> Asserting
>X did it, where X is undefined is not science. If they have
>independent evidence of some Intelligent Entity with the necessary
>abilities at the appropriate time and place, then they should get
>their article published. What question did these astrophysicists
>propose non-naturalistic solutions for?
You need to read up on what intelligent design actually claims.
Dembski's "Design Inference" is technical, but it's the only way to
really understand the thing.
>>I'd like to see a college biology text that clearly proves evolution,
>>rather than merely asserting it. The only one I found that tried to
>>give a legitimate account for evolution (Futuyama, IIRC) failed.
>
>You won't see "proof" of anything in science, science does not deal in
>proof. You will fine plenty of evidence if you bother to look.
By "proof" I do not mean mathematical certainty. I only want a
realistic description of the mechanism involved, rather than heuristic
just-so stories, and I want actual evidences that do not presume the
conclusion they are said to support (like every "transitional form"
offered so far).
I'd most like to see a proponent of the theory derive the equations to
describe evolution and run the numbers, to show whether it really
would or would not work, in theory. The only people I've heard of
doing that we're a group in Pasadena, CA, who concluded that a species
under environmental pressure could adapt fast enough to avoid
extinction if:
1) it had a population over 1 quintillion
2) it had a body size under 1 cm
3) it had a generation span under 3 months
4) each adults produced several hundred offspring.
They had several other factors that they could not quantify, such as
body plan complexity, and the development of a culture (which would
trap apes and whales, for example). So they concluded that we could
expect viruses and bacteria to adapt to changing conditions, but not
much else. I'll ask if they plan to publish the results anytime soon.
They've been understandably cagey about prematurely sharing it outside
of creationism conferences, because some of those involved are CalTech
professors with careers to protect.
> Can you
>understand any of the articles in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology?
>Have you looked at a real college level biology textbook?
Yes and yes.
William
(Sagacious Euphemism) wrote:
> on Mon, 13 Aug 2001 18:51:31 GMT, ta...@mail.clara.net (William)
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:26:51 GMT, mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad
>>Scribbler) wrote:
>>
>>> ta...@mail.clara.net (William)wrote:
>>>
>>>>The fact of our evolutionary past is plain to see.
>>>
>>>How can you say that when there is NO direct, incontrovertible
>>>evidence to support it? Show me ONE direct link between trilobyte
>>>fossils and dinosaurs
>>
>>One direct link???
>>
>>>or ONE direct link between apes and man.
>>
>>And science does not say there is; it says there is a common ancestor
>>
>>Seems like you know very little about the science of evolution. I
>>suggest you go away and read up a bit about it and come back.
>
>Perhaps you know less that you think.
>If there were a common ancestor, there would be links (unless you're
>talking about some strange version of biological evolution that
>differs from the usual one).
>Without showing the links, you have only a theory, not a fact.
>I believe advocates of the evolution myth no longer talk about the
>"missing links" because they have begun to realize that the subject is
>one of their greatest weaknesses.
Folk who uses the term "only a theory" generally have no knowledge of
science. Science deals in "only theories" of electromagnetism,
aerodynamics, gravity and evolution.
And the demand for a continuous fossil record with no "missing links"
is a bit of creationist nonsense. For every link you find you identify
two further "missing links" - one either side of it.
Yet another creationist who needs to read up a bit on real science.
William
mdeli
The fundamentalist view of evolution is forced on bible thumpers in
order to be logically consistent with their particular testament .
Even if evolution proved to be utter nonsense it would do nothing to
help support idiotic Creationist theories.
The key point of Creationism is that the Bible is absolute truth. It
follows that species had to be created at one fell swoop. Added to
this is the logic that we are all miserable sinners due to the
original sin and believing anything which contradicts the bible is
sinful. Christian belief hangs on this thread.
Each religion requires believe that its particular testament is god's
word. All religions claim their testament to be unerring. All other
testaments are rejected.. However since every testament says something
different there is no way to determine which testament if any is
correct.
If theistic beliefs were not encased in theological concrete even
theists would have to concede that where God's word contradicts God's
supposed work (nature and the evidence it provides) it is preferable
to believe in his work.
...As science advances religion retreats.
William
So, in answer to your question about direct links in evolution; Easy.
Read the your scientific evolutionary textbook. That is, if you even
own one.
William
Matt Silberstein
<3b7ac8d0...@news.supernews.com> from
john...@usa.nospamthanks.net (Sagacious Euphemism):
> on Sun, 05 Aug 2001 14:59:08 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read
>><3b6c271a....@news.supernews.com> from
>>johnyaya@don'tspamonme.usa.net (John D):
>>
>>>Furrfu, didja hear what Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> said
>>>on Wed, 01 Aug 2001 19:40:47 -0400:
>>>
><snip>
>>>> Can you provide a valid scientific definition of evolution?
>>>
>>>Which version, micro- or macro-? Can you define it yourself?
>>
>>Bzzzt, wrong answer. Biologists do not define micro and macro
>>evolution differently. Some biologists do distinguish these in some
>>cases, but the basic definition of evolution remains.
>
>Then we see the basic problem. Micro-evolution (the fact that a
>population can have genetic variations over time, sometimes radical
>ones) and macro-evolution (the extrapoolation from micro-evolution to
>the mechanism for getting all the species we have today) are being
>equated. That's just sloppy thinking.
I agree about the sloppy thinking, but I am not doing it. You have
presented non-standard definitions of micro and macro evolution. If we
are going to discuss science, we need to agree on the terms we use,
and we need to use the definitions used by science. In science some
biologists define macroevolution as evolution at the species level and
above. That is, speciation and more speciation. And since speciation
has been *observed*, this is not terribly controversial.
No one simply extrapolates from observed evolution to Common Descent,
the evolution of all life on Earth from a common ancestral population.
There is, however, astounding amounts of evidence for Common Descent.
There are several major independent *lines* of evidence that supports
Common Descent. You still have failed in your attempt to simply *name*
the lines of evidence for Common Descent. You should really have some
minimum level of awareness of the material before you attack it.
><snip>
>>>>Or name what science sees as the major areas of support for Common
>>>>Descent?
>>>
>>>Evolutionists claim genetics and the fossil record support the
>>>evolution myth. Science, per se, claims nothing.
>>
>>Evolutionary biologists (do you call people gravitationists?) do claim
>>these. Can you explain what these biologists say about genetics
>>supports Common Descent? And can you name the other major line of
>>evidence that supports Common Descent? (Hint: Darwin talked about this
>>one.)
>
>Geneticists claim that they can measure the commonalities among
>species, providing evidence of descent.
That is one line of evidence, yes. They do measure the amount of
similarity of DNA between populations. And they get a particular
pattern when they compare the this DNA. Do you know what pattern they
get and why this supports Common Descent?
> Darwin was limited to
>physical comparison.
He also had two other significant lines of evidence. What are they?
> Neither prove what scientists are claiming they
>do, because you don't get the same conclusion if you don't start with
>the expected assumptions.
Please be quite specific in showing how this works. Tell me exactly
what evidence they use and how they assume their conclusions. I would
like to know how genetic and phenotypic comparisons, and the other two
lines of evidence show anything but Common Descent.
>>>>Can you distinguish between the fact of evolution and the
>>>>theory of evolution?
>>>
>>>One is a myth, the other a theory.
>>
>>IOW you can't actually do so: you have been bluffing about your
>>knowledge of evolutionary biology. And, for your information, theories
>>in science are the highest level, not the lowest. Theories explain
>>facts.
>
>No, I was merely pointing out that the "fact of evolution" is not what
>most evolutionists claim it is. That is the myth. The theory is an
>attempt to explain facts, which it is not doing very well.
You were also (deliberately or not) avoiding the question. Whether or
not you accept the scientific results you should be able to show you
know what the words mean. So far you have failed to do that. I would
still like to see if you can distinguish what scientists call the Fact
of Evolution and the Theory of Evolution.
>You should read Sagan's "Candle in the Dark". His "baloney detector"
>and the "invisible dragon in the garage" bit apply very interestingly
>to evolution.
I know you have claimed this. But you have also shown a rather large
lack of information about the topic. Unlike you I have some knowledge
of evolutionary biology. You baloney detector may have gone off, but
it detected your ignorance. (You are free, of course, to show I am
wrong by showing your knowledge of the subject and explaining, not
just declaring, how that evidence sets off the baloney detector.)
><snipo>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>>Take a break .. use your brain .. and seek out a REAL science source for
>>>>>>scientific information!
>>>>>
>>>>>Like Time?
>>>>
>>>>No, like _Nature_ or _Science_ or a good quality college textbook.
>>>
>>>I was just at a conference where two speakers showed us their articles
>>>which _Nature_ rejected, not because the articles advocated
>>>creationism, but because their results pointed too clearly toward
>>>intelligent design.
>>
>>Where can I see these articles? If someone has actual evidence of such
>>rejection I would like to see it.
>
>Still unpublished, far as I know.
>I'll send an email, ask for an update.
I know plenty of scientists who publish their work on the web as well
as in peer-reviewed articles. Certainly these (as yet unnamed)
researchers could publish their articles (or just the rejection
letters) on the web. You have made the strongest version of this claim
I have ever seen. If such articles actually exist and were rejected
for the reasons you claimed I want to know about it. But right now all
I have is your unsubstantiated assertion. You have not even given a
hint at the names or affiliations of these researchers or said a thing
about their work.
>>I am sorry, but I can't just take
>>your word for this. I am sure there are plenty of places on the web
>>where they can get their articles published.
>>
>>>They described the efforts of a colleague to
>>>strictly avoid anything too "non-naturalistic" in order to get his
>>>astrophysics articles published. With a new editor, the publication
>>>may start showing fairness.
>>
>>I agree that scientists should avoid non-naturalistic claims in their
>>articles, science is a methodological naturalistic endeavor.
>
>This is an inaccurate understanding of science. Science *as practiced
>at this time* is methodologically naturalistic. Trying to define it
>as such is typical of those who cannot differentiate between their
>philosophy and actual science. It was not so in the past, and nothing
>inherently requires it to be so.
So provide an example of what you consider quality non-naturalistic
science. When, in your view, is it sensible to say "God did it" in
science? It seems to me you fail to understand what "methodological"
means. It means precisely that the people can distinguish between
their philosophy and science. They *practice* naturalism in their
*methodology* and leave philosophy and theology for other activities.
>> Asserting
>>X did it, where X is undefined is not science. If they have
>>independent evidence of some Intelligent Entity with the necessary
>>abilities at the appropriate time and place, then they should get
>>their article published. What question did these astrophysicists
>>propose non-naturalistic solutions for?
>
>You need to read up on what intelligent design actually claims.
>Dembski's "Design Inference" is technical, but it's the only way to
>really understand the thing.
I have read Dembski, he says nothing at all of importance. That you
find it technical says quite a bit. He waves his hands about some
numbers, but never actually does a thing with them.
>>>I'd like to see a college biology text that clearly proves evolution,
>>>rather than merely asserting it. The only one I found that tried to
>>>give a legitimate account for evolution (Futuyama, IIRC) failed.
>>
>>You won't see "proof" of anything in science, science does not deal in
>>proof. You will fine plenty of evidence if you bother to look.
>
>By "proof" I do not mean mathematical certainty. I only want a
>realistic description of the mechanism involved, rather than heuristic
>just-so stories,
Then take some college level biology courses. The material is there
open and available.
>and I want actual evidences that do not presume the
>conclusion they are said to support (like every "transitional form"
>offered so far).
This, again, suggests a profound misunderstanding of the claims of
evolutionary biology. In a very real sense all "forms" are
transitional.
>I'd most like to see a proponent of the theory derive the equations to
>describe evolution and run the numbers, to show whether it really
>would or would not work, in theory.
Since evolutionary biology is such a large field I wonder why you want
such an equation.
> The only people I've heard of
>doing that we're a group in Pasadena, CA, who concluded that a species
>under environmental pressure could adapt fast enough to avoid
>extinction if:
>1) it had a population over 1 quintillion
>2) it had a body size under 1 cm
>3) it had a generation span under 3 months
>4) each adults produced several hundred offspring.
>They had several other factors that they could not quantify, such as
>body plan complexity, and the development of a culture (which would
>trap apes and whales, for example).
What in the world does this have to do with most species? Most life on
Earth is single celled, so the body plan is rather simple. And the
term culture has a different meaning when discussing them. ;-)
> So they concluded that we could
>expect viruses and bacteria to adapt to changing conditions, but not
>much else.
Actually sensible. Most life on Earth is single celled. Us
multi-celled creatures are almost a rounding error. And, btw, most
species do go extinct.
> I'll ask if they plan to publish the results anytime soon.
>They've been understandably cagey about prematurely sharing it outside
>of creationism conferences, because some of those involved are CalTech
>professors with careers to protect.
This sounds like nonsense. Speciation has been *observed*. If some
mathematicians have developed some equations that make other
predictions, then their equations are wrong. If you want equations,
look at population genetics. I suspect these "professors" are not
biologists.
>> Can you
>>understand any of the articles in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology?
>>Have you looked at a real college level biology textbook?
>
>Yes and yes.
Ok, what actual article would you like to discuss?
Matt Silberstein
<3b77e336....@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The
Mad Scribbler):
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 18:04:31 GMT, ta...@mail.clara.net (William)
Humans are apes. And I am not even sure that trilobites are ancestral
to dinosaurs.
Matt Silberstein
<3b7ac899...@news.supernews.com> from
john...@usa.nospamthanks.net (Sagacious Euphemism):
[snip]
>Perhaps you know less that you think.
>If there were a common ancestor, there would be links (unless you're
>talking about some strange version of biological evolution that
>differs from the usual one).
Nope. I share a common ancestor with you, but that does not mean I
have evidence of a "direct link" between us.
>Without showing the links, you have only a theory, not a fact.
Perhaps you know less than you think. Theory, in science, does not
mean unsubstantiated claim, it means explanatory model. The Theory of
Evolution exists to explain the Fact of Evolution.
>I believe advocates of the evolution myth no longer talk about the
>"missing links" because they have begun to realize that the subject is
>one of their greatest weaknesses.
Nope, they don't really talk about them because the term is silly.
Once you find something it is not missing. The fossil record is but
one of several independent lines of evidence supporting Common
Descent. The record is quite sparse for quite well known reasons. So
we will always have gaps in the record. But the record does show what
we would expect give sparse biased* sampling of Common Descent.
*The word does not mean what you think it means. It means that not all
life has an equal chance of leaving a preserved fossil. Organisms with
hard parts will be more likely to leave fossils as will marine
organisms near the shore. Hence we have a much better record of marine
mollusks than we do of bats.
The Mad Scribbler
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Theory, in science, does not mean unsubstantiated claim, it means explanatory model.
>The Theory of Evolution exists to explain the Fact of Evolution.
Theory, in any case is just that. An attempt to explain the observed
with a model that fits the observations. This does nothing to prove or
disprove the evidence presented, it is merely a method of defining the
undefinable. My basis of claim is that anything that does not fit the
currently accepted "Fact" of evolution is tossed out, laughed out, or
simply ignored.
>The fossil record is but one of several independent lines of evidence
>supporting CommonDescent. The record is quite sparse for quite well
>known reasons.
And those reasons would be what? Further theories to try to make the
model fit the expected outcome? You start with a premise and work
like hell to make the evidence fit that premise.
>*The word does not mean what you think it means. It means that not all
>life has an equal chance of leaving a preserved fossil. Organisms with
>hard parts will be more likely to leave fossils as will marine
>organisms near the shore. Hence we have a much better record of marine
>mollusks than we do of bats.
Exactly why you can NOT use fossil evidence to substantiate the theory
of evolution. If you do not have clear direct evidence then you can
not make the claim that everything follows from the scant evidence
that you do posess. It is analogous to observing one dog catching a
frisbee at a park and saying that ALL dogs will catch a thrown
frisbee.
The Mad Scribbler
wrote:
>So, in answer to your question about direct links in evolution; Easy.
>Read the your scientific evolutionary textbook. That is, if you even
>own one.
So, I am to read a book, written by men who have had less than 50
years of actual study, based on theories less than 100 years of
research to support claims that the earth is billions of years old,
whereas the Bible was written by men who were actually present at the
events described and essentially exists unchanged for the last 6000
years?
The Mad Scribbler
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Humans are apes. And I am not even sure that trilobites are ancestral
>to dinosaurs.
Point one: You know this how? Because some scientist said so based on
a single bone?
Point two: If trilobites are not ancestral to dinosaurs, how did the
dinosaurs evolve? Answer: They didn't.
Matt Silberstein
<3b811e70....@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The
Mad Scribbler):
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:44:01 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
There is an unmarked snip by The Mad Scribbler.
>>Theory, in science, does not mean unsubstantiated claim, it means explanatory model.
>>The Theory of Evolution exists to explain the Fact of Evolution.
>
>Theory, in any case is just that. An attempt to explain the observed
>with a model that fits the observations.
Yep, just like the theory of gravity or of thermodynamics.
> This does nothing to prove or
>disprove the evidence presented, it is merely a method of defining the
>undefinable.
Huh? That makes no sense at all. Of course an explanation of
observations does not "prove" those observations. Observations don't
need proof, they are observed. And explanations don't "define the
undefinable". Science leaves that kind of thing to theology.
> My basis of claim is that anything that does not fit the
>currently accepted "Fact" of evolution is tossed out, laughed out, or
>simply ignored.
That is a claim itself, not a basis of a claim. Do you have examples
of actual observations that have been so rejected? I know you have
stories you have heard of people somewhere doing something, but I need
something a bit better supported. How about actual repeatable
verifiable experiments that contradict the actual scientific theory or
fact of evolution? Do you know of any such that *I* can look at?
(Again, stories you have heard of someone doing something don't count
as evidence.)
There was another unmarked snip here.
>>The fossil record is but one of several independent lines of evidence
>>supporting CommonDescent. The record is quite sparse for quite well
>>known reasons.
>
>And those reasons would be what? Further theories to try to make the
>model fit the expected outcome? You start with a premise and work
>like hell to make the evidence fit that premise.
I gather you not only don't know the material, you can't even be
bother to think about it for a while. Do you really want me to explain
why the fossil record is sparse? For an organism to leave a fossil
millions of years later several rather rare events need to occur. For
the most part the organism needs to die in a way that it is not
scavenged. It needs to die in an anaerobic environment so that the
bones will be preserved. The preservation site need to remain
relatively undisturbed for quite a long time. Etc. The "premise" here
is observations of the world around us.
>>*The word does not mean what you think it means. It means that not all
>>life has an equal chance of leaving a preserved fossil. Organisms with
>>hard parts will be more likely to leave fossils as will marine
>>organisms near the shore. Hence we have a much better record of marine
>>mollusks than we do of bats.
>
>Exactly why you can NOT use fossil evidence to substantiate the theory
>of evolution.
Please explain that since it is certainly not obvious to me. Why is a
known bias in the record, a bias independent of evolution, a reason we
can't use the record as evidence for evolution?
> If you do not have clear direct evidence then you can
>not make the claim that everything follows from the scant evidence
>that you do posess. It is analogous to observing one dog catching a
>frisbee at a park and saying that ALL dogs will catch a thrown
>frisbee.
You are right, we don't have perfect information, we never have
perfect information. And it would be a big mistake for science to
extrapolate from one instance. Luckily they don't do what you claim.
There are lots of fossils, thousands and millions. Of course the Earth
has had trillions of organisms, so millions of fossils is a sparse
sample. But we can make good theories from such records. And then we
have the other lines of evidence. Other lines that, though derived
independently, support the fossil record. Can you name those other
lines of evidence?
Matt Silberstein
<3b812031....@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The
Mad Scribbler):
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 11:06:28 GMT, ta...@mail.clara.net (William)
Which Bible is this? I know of no such document that fits these
characteristics. (And, yes, you are to take the works of science over
your interpretation of a text. People are known to lie, to make things
up, etc. OTOH you can reproduce the work of science, you can check the
evidence and the work and predictions. Care to tell us what you rather
unique Bible says about the ability of the malaria parasite to become
immune to drugs?)
Matt Silberstein
<3b8120d7....@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The
Mad Scribbler):
>On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 16:37:47 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Humans are apes. And I am not even sure that trilobites are ancestral
>>to dinosaurs.
>
>Point one: You know this how? Because some scientist said so based on
>a single bone?
Nope. We have far more than "a single bone" to support this. Would you
care to suggest what *scientific* evidence exists that distinguished
humans from apes? (Do you actually know what apes are?)
>Point two: If trilobites are not ancestral to dinosaurs, how did the
>dinosaurs evolve? Answer: They didn't.
Correct answer, the evolved from something else. Dinosaurs and
trilobites share a common ancestor.
The Mad Scribbler
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP>
(There, you want to be picky about it, I've marked where I've
snipped.)
I would urge you to READ (meaning to view with an open mind the words
and facts presented to you) the following:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
I think that you will find all of your questions answered.
Termite of Temptation
> >to dinosaurs.
>
> Point one: You know this how? Because some scientist said so based on
> a single bone?
Sigh... OK. You know DNA? Your personal DNA differs from the DNA of a
chimpanzee by less than 1%. In addition, you two share a good many
characteristics, such as digestive system, nervous system, skeleton,
breathing apparatus, teeth, hair, eyes, limbs, blood proteins - if
you've got it, there's a good chance the chimp has - or at least
something very similar.
It's not hard to see the overwhelming resemblence between man and ape,
once you consider the similarities. It has nothing to do with bones.
It has to do with DNA patterns and morphology.
> Point two: If trilobites are not ancestral to dinosaurs, how did the
> dinosaurs evolve? Answer: They didn't.
Totally obviously, dinosaurs must have evolved from a *contemporary*
or ancestror of trilobites, as in this diagram:
Pre-trilobite
/ \
Proto Dinosaur Trilobite
| |
Dinosaur
Not so hard, really, is it? No need to leap to the "evolution must be
false" conclusion straight away, certainly.
No offense meant, but it is clear from your posts that your
understanding of evolution isn't really comprehensive enough for you
to effectively attack it. You can find lots of informative and
interesting material at www.talkorigins.org.
HTH
Duncan
Termite of Temptation
> >Read the your scientific evolutionary textbook. That is, if you even
> >own one.
>
> So, I am to read a book, written by men who have had less than 50
> years of actual study, based on theories less than 100 years of
> research to support claims that the earth is billions of years old,
> whereas the Bible was written by men who were actually present at the
> events described and essentially exists unchanged for the last 6000
> years?
..ahem. Would you care to estimate the age of the English language (to
the nearest thousand years)? It was only after the protestant
reformation that the Bible was widely translated into the common
tongues so that ordinary people could read it.
Of course, this is not relevent if you're reading it in the original
Hebrew.
Besides, if the Bible is "essentially unchanged for 6000 years",
doesn't that make the New Testament 6000 years old, rather than 2000?
You seem to present the curious viewpoint that the *older* something
is, the more likely it is to be *right*. I can only scratch my head at
this. The evolution textbooks were written by men at the top of their
field, and were peer-reviewed by scientists who had nothing to gain
from approving.
Not only that, but the results in the textbooks don't ask for any
faith. If you feel like it, you can drive to any of the huge geologic
columns in the world and see the evidence for yourself. The Bible, on
the other hand, specifically denies us evidence (for a series of
rather shaky reasons).
If, as you state, you are so distrustful of any new discovery or idea,
I would cease immediately your use of computers (which are based on
quantum mechanics), and never fly on an aeroplane, being as they are
all less than 200 years old. Of course, if you absolutely must check
your email, try using ENIAC - the oldest computer there is - it's
bound to be better than these new-fangled things.
I think I've made my point...
Duncan
The Mad Scribbler
Temptation) wrote:
>Sigh... OK. You know DNA? Your personal DNA differs from the DNA of a
>chimpanzee by less than 1%. In addition, you two share a good many
>characteristics, such as digestive system, nervous system, skeleton,
>breathing apparatus, teeth, hair, eyes, limbs, blood proteins - if
>you've got it, there's a good chance the chimp has - or at least
>something very similar.
1% of billions of combinations is still a statistically large gap.
You could say that because I share .01% difference in DNA between
myself and someone in China that we must be related, but I can prove
to you that there is no possible way for us to be related by blood
because my family all came from Norway. Same argument, different
conclusion.
I share a digestive system, nervous system, skeleton, breathing
apparatus, etc. the same as a dog has, doesn't mean that I'm descended
from dogs now does it?
Similarity of form does NOT imply similarity in background. Why is
it, for years science tried to say that we were more closely related
to gorillas, but have backed away from that argument because it could
not be proven?
>It's not hard to see the overwhelming resemblence between man and ape,
>once you consider the similarities. It has nothing to do with bones.
>It has to do with DNA patterns and morphology.
It has to do with similarity of form, nothing else.
> Pre-trilobite
> / \
>Proto Dinosaur Trilobite
> | |
> Dinosaur
So, where are the fossils of the "pre-trilobites" and
"proto-dinosaurs"? There are fossils of dinosaurs all over the world,
and rock impressions of trilobites, but nothing between or before
them. How would you explain that?
>Not so hard, really, is it? No need to leap to the "evolution must be
>false" conclusion straight away, certainly.
The more you look at the so-called "evidence" the more difficult the
leap becomes.
>No offense meant, but it is clear from your posts that your
>understanding of evolution isn't really comprehensive enough for you
>to effectively attack it. You can find lots of informative and
>interesting material at www.talkorigins.org.
You can find rebuttals to all of your arguments here:
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
Geno08537
Geno:
>No offense meant, but it is clear from your posts that your
>understanding of evolution isn't really comprehensive enough for you
>to effectively attack it.
That's what Creationist ministers rely on. :\
--
Geno08537
The Path is The Way, The Way is the Light, The Light is Grey
Matt Silberstein
<3b83b9c0....@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The
Mad Scribbler):
>On Tue, 21 Aug 2001 21:29:25 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP SNIP>
>(There, you want to be picky about it, I've marked where I've
>snipped.)
Yes, I am picky. Unmarked snips can easily deceive a reader. OTOH
readers here can easily see that you have ignored every single one of
my points.
>
>I would urge you to READ (meaning to view with an open mind the words
>and facts presented to you) the following:
>
>http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
>
>I think that you will find all of your questions answered.
It answers my main question, which was whether you know enough about
the actual science of evolutionary biology. By ignoring my questions
and pointing me to an error filled page you show you really don't know
the science, you just know the creationist material. I suggest you
read www.talkorigins.org and then follow up the reference to check
their work. Or at least the transitional fossil FAQ. You claims are
wrong, transitional sequences do exist.
Matt Silberstein
<3b850a0d...@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad
Scribbler):
>On 22 Aug 2001 09:14:42 -0700, womanl...@hotmail.com (Termite of
>Temptation) wrote:
>
>>Sigh... OK. You know DNA? Your personal DNA differs from the DNA of a
>>chimpanzee by less than 1%. In addition, you two share a good many
>>characteristics, such as digestive system, nervous system, skeleton,
>>breathing apparatus, teeth, hair, eyes, limbs, blood proteins - if
>>you've got it, there's a good chance the chimp has - or at least
>>something very similar.
>
>1% of billions of combinations is still a statistically large gap.
Really? Would you care to produce your estimates of how long it would
take evolution to create this gap? And would you care to describe the
pattern you get when you compare lots of organism's DNA? Do you expect
any kind of pattern at all in similarity?
BTW, I would like to see your explanation for how we have the current
diversity in human DNA given at most 8 distinct genotypes 4,000 years
ago (according to your story).
>You could say that because I share .01% difference in DNA between
>myself and someone in China that we must be related, but I can prove
>to you that there is no possible way for us to be related by blood
>because my family all came from Norway.
ROTFLMAO. For how long was your family in Norway? And do you really
want to assert that in your view you are not related to that person
from China? I would have thought you did claim common ancestry, but
perhaps I misunderstand your position. Would you care to say you view
of the history of life on Earth? What do you think happened and what
evidence supports this view?
> Same argument, different
>conclusion.
Same argument, *same* conclusion.
>I share a digestive system, nervous system, skeleton, breathing
>apparatus, etc. the same as a dog has, doesn't mean that I'm descended
>from dogs now does it?
No. It does suggest that you share a common ancestor. Just like you
are not descended from that hypothetical in China, but you could
easily share a common ancestor.
>Similarity of form does NOT imply similarity in background. Why is
>it, for years science tried to say that we were more closely related
>to gorillas, but have backed away from that argument because it could
>not be proven?
Close but wrong. There has been quite a bit of debate on whether we
are closer to gorillas than to chimps and whether they are closer to
each other than to us. It seems that the branching point was very
close in time, so the differences are similar. Science does not always
speak with a single voice.
>>It's not hard to see the overwhelming resemblence between man and ape,
>>once you consider the similarities. It has nothing to do with bones.
>>It has to do with DNA patterns and morphology.
>
>It has to do with similarity of form, nothing else.
>
>> Pre-trilobite
>> / \
>>Proto Dinosaur Trilobite
>> | |
>> Dinosaur
>
>So, where are the fossils of the "pre-trilobites" and
>"proto-dinosaurs"?
Plenty of pre-dinosaurs. (Do you think they are close in time?) Some
from pre-trilobites, but that was hundreds of million years ago and
hard parts were just forming. Again, soft parts don't fossilize well.
> There are fossils of dinosaurs all over the world,
>and rock impressions of trilobites, but nothing between or before
>them. How would you explain that?
Where did you get this "nothing between them"? I was looking at a
bunch of "betweens" in the American Museum of Natural History just
last month.
>>Not so hard, really, is it? No need to leap to the "evolution must be
>>false" conclusion straight away, certainly.
>
>The more you look at the so-called "evidence" the more difficult the
>leap becomes.
When do you plan on presenting evidence.
>>No offense meant, but it is clear from your posts that your
>>understanding of evolution isn't really comprehensive enough for you
>>to effectively attack it. You can find lots of informative and
>>interesting material at www.talkorigins.org.
>
>You can find rebuttals to all of your arguments here:
>http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/fossils.htm
No, they are not. You may have noticed that the page is just
assertions, no references at all to any evidence. No references to any
peer-reviewed articles. All it is is a re-hash of Gish's nonsense.
The Mad Scribbler
<mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In alt.religion.christian I read
<much snippage>
There is no holiness in a mind so terribly corrupted by the lies of
the evolutionists.
I can see that we can have this argument ad infinitum and I still
would not be able to convince you of the grace and glory of God's
creation. I can only pray that one day you will have your eyes opened
to the Truth before it is too late.
Geno08537
And I'll be sacrificing thirteen black goats to Charles "Satan" Darwin that
your eyes will be opened to our religion of evolutionism before your soul
is forever corrupted by Yahweh.
Therion Ware
alt.atheism:
Shouldn't that be three white goats to one black goat?
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.co.uk>. 45.00 gets your video on DVD.
There is no EAC, so delete it from the email, if you want to communicate.
Geno08537
>On 25 Aug 2001 09:54:25 GMT, Geno08537@ (Geno08537) wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad Scribbler) wrote this on the Path of Geno:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:50:21 -0400, Matt Silberstein
>>><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In alt.religion.christian I read
>>>
>>><much snippage>
>>>
>>>There is no holiness in a mind so terribly corrupted by the lies of
>>>the evolutionists.
>>>
>>>I can see that we can have this argument ad infinitum and I still
>>>would not be able to convince you of the grace and glory of God's
>>>creation. I can only pray that one day you will have your eyes opened
>>>to the Truth before it is too late.
>>
>>And I'll be sacrificing thirteen black goats to Charles "Satan" Darwin
>>that your eyes will be opened to our religion of evolutionism before
>>your soul is forever corrupted by Yahweh.
>
>Shouldn't that be three white goats to one black goat?
This sacrifice is from the *secret* writings. Shhhh.
Matt Silberstein
<3b865be4...@cnews.newsguy.com> from mads...@yahoo.com (The Mad
Scribbler):
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:50:21 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>In alt.religion.christian I read
>
><much snippage>
>
>There is no holiness in a mind so terribly corrupted by the lies of
>the evolutionists.
I guess when you lack the facts insults seem like a reasonable
alternative. I feel sorry for you, I really do.
>I can see that we can have this argument ad infinitum and I still
>would not be able to convince you of the grace and glory of God's
>creation.
I have not seen you assert anything about the glory of God's creation
nor have you seen a word from me that denies that glory. You confuse
your ignorant (of science, that is, the physical world around you)
egocentrism with God.
> I can only pray that one day you will have your eyes opened
>to the Truth before it is too late.
Look around you. The truth is in the world itself.