Evolution has a problem...
Gerard
attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
selection and migration.
Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
to construct aerodynamic wings.
How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
jillery
Your facts are inaccurate, and your conclusions have been long-ago and
repeatedly disproved. In the time since this nic last appeared in TO,
you could have at least updated your material.
Virgil
<b7036cc2-55c9-45c2...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> wrote:
Natural Selection selects those mutations and variations which enhance
the individual's chances of passing on those mutations and variations to
its progeny.
Over the billions of years in which Natural Selection has been in
operation there have been a lot of such mutations and variations being
selected.
Since we can see the great effects on domesticated species that
deliberate selection has had in relatively short times, why doubt that
natural selection over immense time can do great things?
aganunitsi
You've gone from "random" to "mistake" in the course of five
paragraphs. Nice verbal jujutsu.
But you're using the same old random fallacy. Are your genes going to
spread by random? You're just flingin' spunk in every direction, and
whatever it hits it mixes with? Maybe you'll have a kid that's half
you, half crab grass?
My genes are going to reproduce much more selectively. Random would be
the worst word to describe it.
DougC
> Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
> generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
> bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
Not quite. You have focused on the lucky occurance of useful or
superior new traits as a positive leap toward thriving. There is no
such goal. Mother Nature is not a cheerleader. In fact, random
new traits are more likely to result in death of the organism. Then
there are neutral changes that can be borne, like pink flamingos or
cloven hooves.
Doug Chandler
Ernest Major
<b7036cc2-55c9-45c2...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> writes
>The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
>attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
>attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
>selection and migration.
Well, you start off fairly well - one can argue about the list of
mechanisms, but it's not a bad approximation.
[I would subsume sexual (and artificial) selection in natural selection,
but not everybody would.
I wouldn't qualify mutation as random - while to the best of our
observation it is random with respect to fitness in many other ways it
is not random. I would be tempted to broaden mutation to (genetic)
variation - which would include recombination.
Gene flow includes introgression as well as migration.
Where do we put meiotic drive.]
>
>Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
>genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
>mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
>stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
>determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
>not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
But you then proceed to an obvious falsehood, and a misdirection.
Mutations are not universally detrimental. Nor are they believed to be
solely the result of stress induced errors in cell replication, so a
failure to attribute them conclusively to such is an expected result,
not a problem.
BTW, do you really mean to claim both that mutations are all detrimental
and that they are programmed. Those claims don't really go together. You
may not have shot yourself in your foot, but there's gunshot residue on
your shoes.
Mutations are in many ways non-random. However, they are observed (not
assumed), as far as we can tell, not to have a bias towards beneficial
mutations.
>
>Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
>generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
>structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
>they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
>and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
>bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
>the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
>
>The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
>declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
>complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
>of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
>inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
>Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
>initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
>because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
>same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
>of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
>construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
>to construct aerodynamic wings.
>
>How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
>complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
>artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
>successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
The above is an argument from personal incredulity. Given an appropriate
landscape, stochastic hill climbing searches (variation and selection)
can be highly effective. (See the use of genetic algorithms to solve
engineering problems.)
--
alias Ernest Major
VoiceOfReason
Gerard wrote:
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
<snip blah blah blah>
> How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
Evolution is directly observed.
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
>attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
>attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
>selection and migration.
>
>Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
>genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
>mutations are detriments only and
PPPHWWWEEETTT!!!! Flag on the play!!
prove this statement. how is a mutation a detriment if the environment
does the selecting of what is a detriment? is a mutation which
provides bacteria with resistance to disease a detriment?
if you're going to m ake statements like this, so obviously wrong,
perhaps you'd be better writing in your sunday school bulletin rather
than in this forum
cannot conclusively be attributed to
>stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
>determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
>not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
who said mutations are 'stress induced'?
>
>How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
>complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
>artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
>successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
because some mistakes have functions. sorry, sport. you're outta your
league
back to the AAA league with more amateur creationists.
>
chris thompson
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
How is hemoglobin C detrimental? It provides significant protection
against malaria without the debilitating effects associated with
sickle cell disease.
Faulty assumption; incorrect conclusion.
Chris
snip
Ron O
Just face the facts. The main problem that the theory of biological
evolution has is dealing with nitwits that do not want to understand
the theory, but still want to criticize it.
What is your alternative to the fact of biological evolution?
Probably even you with some training can go out and measure the rate
at which some natural population is changing. Really, do you have a
means to stop evolution from happening? Can you go out to any medium
sized population in nature and stop the evolution of the population
short of killing off the entire population? What do you have to
replace the fact of evolution, when you know that you can't stop
evolution from happening?
Define evolution away? What good does that do? Look at your
statement above. You have to claim that all mutations are
detrimental. Do you know that this isn't true? Why do you think that
the anti-evolution scam artists have toned down their propaganda and
just claim that most mutations are detrimental or that a lot of
mutations are detrimental? Most mutations don't seem to do much of
anything at all. Shouldn't you change your shtick to better reflect
reality? If you did that, you would have a problem in that your
claims would pretty much fall apart. What does natural selection do
and if all mutations are not detrimental, what is to keep natural
selection from allowing a favorable mutation to increase in frequency
in the population?
Don't you read this group? Haven't you read the threads where they
discuss things like various mouse populations and how they have
determined the mutation responsible for changes in fur color and can
track under what environmental conditions the different variants are
selected for or against? They have even determined the exact base-
pair mutation in some cases.
The least you could do is take your criticism and apply it to your own
idea of what happened. There is no comparison. Why do you think that
one is verifiable and the other is not? Verification may be a sliding
scale, but your alternative falls off the charts compared to the
alternative that you do not like. Why waste your time with arguments
that depend on assertions that are not true? Really, have you ever
verified your claim that all mutations are detrimental? What happens
to your argument if that assertion is as false as you likely already
know that it is?
Ron Okimoto
richardal...@googlemail.com
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information.
No, they are mistakes in replicating genetic information.
> As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only
FALSEHOOD #1
Most mutations are neutral or silent. Of the remainder, some are
detrimental, some are benefical.
> and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> stress induced errors in cell replication
Well, no. They can be attributed to a number of different factors.
> (Note that science cannot
> determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
FALSEHOOD #2
They are called random because they are random in respect of fitness.
This has been found in numerous studies of the incidence of mutations.
>
> Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
> generations
FALSEHOOD #3
No, it doesn't, It deals with the accumulation of mutations, many of
which are silent or neutral and do not necessarily represent new
traits.
> until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> and thrive. Then they migrate
\Not necessarily.Where on earth did you get this idea?
> and the good migrations into safe or
> bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
FALSEHOOD #4
Nonsense. It's a very distorted view on evolutionary theory riddled
with falsehoods.
>
> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> declared by evolution
Evolution doesn't "declare" anything. It's a phenomenon of nature we
can observe in action in natural populations and replicate in the
laboroatory.
> as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> complex structures, like wings of flight for example.
Why is this a problem? Evolutionary theory provides the only
scientific explanation for how wings were created, and explains many
aspects of their morphology, such as the fundamental differences in
structure between bird, bat and pterosaur wings.
> The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
FALSEHOOD #5
Utter bullshit. It requires the gradual modification of existing
structures in response to environmental pressure.
> Logic alone tells us this:
Logic tells us that this is a loaf of utter bullshit demonstrating
only your ignorance of evolutionary theory.
> If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
> initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> to construct aerodynamic wings.
Have you ever considered that if you were to educate yourself in the
basics of evolutionary theory you wouldn't make yourself look ignorant
and foolish (not to say dishonest) every time you post garbage like
this?
> How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
It might be a good idea if you took a course in remedial English
before embarking on an education in biology.
"Science" accepts evolutionary theory as the explanation for the
origin of the diversity of organisms because it is testable, and is
the only testable explanation we have. If you have a better
explanation, feel free to offer it. If you can't - and we all know
that you can't - why on earth should anyone treat your ignorant
ramblings with anything other than contempt?
RF
Steven L.
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b7036cc2-55c9-45c2...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only
Not true.
Ever heard of MRSA? It's been in all the newspapers.
MRSA is a new strain of Staphylococcus aureus, a very common skin
bacterium. But this strain had mutated to be resistant to the
penicillins and cephalosporins, two of the major classes of antibiotics.
That's highly beneficial to the bacteria (and bad news for any humans
who get infected with it).
> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
Can random search through a space of possibilities produce dramatically
beneficial results?
You have only to look at computer programs that play chess. Just
programmed with the basic rules and strategies of chess, the programs do
a search through a space of zillions of possible moves and
countermoves--and choose the best one. The rest are discarded.
There's no real intelligence in a brute-force search. But because the
computer has the power to search all these possibilities quickly, it can
select a good move. And one of these computers actually beat Gary
Kasparov--and could easily beat you or I.
Evolution works because trillions of life forms are constantly producing
trillions of offspring. You're right that most of these offspring will
be no better than their parents. But a very few will. And by
exponentially outcompeting the rest, the progeny of those few will, in
time, come to dominate the population.
-- Steven L.
Rolf
To begin with, "useful or superior new traits" don't miraculously appear
randomly out of the blue.
I suggest you get some literature, read it and try to understand what
science actually says about the mechanisms of evolution. There are so many
good books out there, why not try it?
I only know a few of them, like "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean B.
Carroll; "Your inner Fish" by Neil Shubin, or "The Riddled Chain" by Jeffrey
McKee.
Darwin's books are also very good and well worth reading as an introduction
to the subject.
I wish you good luck with your studies.
BTW, the talkorigins archive is a goldmine of information about all aspects
of evolution.
There is so much information available to anyone with a sincere wish to
learn that there's no excuse for being ignorant.
Pink flamingoes? As good a beginning as any, just look at a chameleon if
you can spot it...
Heaven knows what hoves with clefts in them might lead to if nature had any
use for further dvelopments.
We don't leap the Himalaya's, we climb step by step. The first step may not
even take you to Mt. Everest, maybe you end up in Katmandu.
Dave Oldridge
ee081e...@z35g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
> determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
This is false to fact. Mutations cover the spectrum of variation for every
genetic characteristic. They are NOT universally detrimental. Who told
you that LIE?
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283
Harry K
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only
<snip>
When your cut-n-paste begins with a lie, it renders the rest
worthless.
Harry K
John Harshman
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information.
No they aren't. Unless you have a private definition of "replication".
Mutations are actually errors of replication.
> As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
> determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
First, most mutations are neutral. Second, if mutations aren't random,
why do they look random? And why are the known mechanisms of mutation
the sort of thing that would happen randomly? Finally, if they aren't
random, what drunken idiot is causing them?
> Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
> generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> structure.
Fine up until "until they become useful".
> And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
> bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
That's a seriously garbled theory of evolution. You are confusing all
manner of things, including, in the last bit, species selection and
individual selection, the evolutionary role of migration, and (it
appears) are assuming some kind of sequential application of all these
mechanisms.
> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
There's your major problem. No, it wouldn't. It would require the
accumulation of many successive, small changes, each advantageous (or on
occasion just neutral) at the time. And that is indeed what we need. Any
"foreknowledge" of aerodynamics is supplied by the environment, which
makes some changes advantageous and others deleterious.
> Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
> initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> to construct aerodynamic wings.
No. Your main problem here is that you forget that these organisms exist
in populations. You don't need a single line to keep all the good and
add more good. You just need a population varying at random, with the
best innovations increasing in frequency and the worst decreasing. If an
individual has a bad mutation, it doesn't spread. If an individual has a
good mutation, it does. This is basic to natural selection, and if you
don't understand that (and you apparently don't) then you understand
nothing.
> How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
You understand, I hope, that natural selection is well documented, both
in the wild and in the lab. So your claim that natural selection can't
possibly work is silly on that count alone. Further, you have a basic
misunderstanding of the process, common to many creationists. Natural
selection keeps the bad mutations from spreading, spreads the good ones,
and also keeps them from being lost. That's how it works. And it's
ridiculously easy to show how that would happen, given a randomly
varying population. Very, very simple population genetics. Why, it's so
obvious that some creationists claim it's a tautology.
backspace
> >How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
> The above is an argument from personal incredulity. Given an appropriate
> landscape, stochastic hill climbing searches (variation and selection)
> can be highly effective.
Certainly if somebody made a decision by selecting for an outcome. But
then again you are using "selection" in the pattern sense? What about
people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
that hill.
archie dux
Organism which leave no children have no grandchildren.
It's really not that hard to understand.
"Extinct" requires no decisions by anyone.
archie
JohnN
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only
That statement needs some explaining. Each time an organism sexually
reproduces mutations occur. If these mutations were all detriments
the new organism would die or fail to reproduce thus driving the
species to extinction. (Not even considering the species would never
have evolved in the first place.)
JohnN
Bob T.
Ah, you haven't dealt with 'backspace' before - _everything_ is hard
for him to understand.
- Bob T
Kermit
> On Mar 4, 9:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > >How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> > >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> > >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> > >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
> > The above is an argument from personal incredulity. Given an appropriate
> > landscape, stochastic hill climbing searches (variation and selection)
> > can be highly effective.
>
> Certainly if somebody made a decision by selecting for an outcome. But
> then again you are using "selection" in the pattern sense?
Nope. When a pig breeder chooses a large male to sire the next litter
of piglets. he's not thinking "design", he's thinking "bigger".
> What about
> people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
> that hill.
Perhaps you would care to quote from a textbook or manual on breeding
in which the magical difference between those two words is discussed?
Also, you might want to explain the genetic difference on the pig
litter if the breeder favors large pigs, or other circumstances do
(such as, say, colder weather).
Kermit
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
<markge...@aol.com>:
Your oft-refuted claim, complete with erroneous premises and
faulty conclusions, is noted.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Desertphile
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
Gooly, that's amazing. Be sure to write a paper on the subject and
submit it to a refereed peer-reviewed science journal.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Friar Broccoli
> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
> Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
> initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> to construct aerodynamic wings.
If you go to the trouble of replying to this post I will describe a
simple set of steps for achieving wings in insects without the need
for foreknowledge of any type. I should be able to do the
presentation in roughly four short paragraphs so you won't need to do
a lot of reading either.
backspace
> > What about
> > people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
> > that hill.
> Perhaps you would care to quote �from a textbook or manual on breeding
> in which the magical difference between those two words is discussed?
Words have no meaning. Do you know what is the difference between a
design and pattern and that any word even "non-random" can be used to
symbolically represent chance and not directed, as in "..... natural
selection is non-random...."
Many authors say this but what they mean is "..... natural selection
shall forever be absolute empire of accident, for strategic reasons,
we are just using non-random but we don't mean directed...."
Many time i have asked "do you mean directed with non-random" and the
answer is always no. But either your house built itself or it was
made. Either a manufacturing plant was directed or it made itself.
Gerard
> Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
Gerard: That's not saying much. Saying mutations aren't always
detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds. Its the
universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
formation of such diverse complexity. That's like saying a thousand
deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling. Where are the
crashing birds? The crashing insects?
Yes, I am saying that every mutation is ultimately designed. However,
I believe there is random involved in terms of dispersal of genetic
variations in the design database channeled into each species genomes.
And there is random involved in the carrying out of the detrimental
decree of mortal nature by the designer or creator. I believe
mutations and evolution are true, but only in the sense of how they
reveal the creative channeling used by the creator. Science seems to
back this to a high degree, although there are some difficulties.
Gerard
?
>
> Evolution is directly observed.>
You mean change? I agree. We observe elusive behaviour in detrimental
organisms and cells. We observe diversification. But we don't observe
and cannot expect these and more complex developments to be caused by
unplanned mutations in the ultimate sense. There is a controller,
there is an overseer behind these changes. You cannot logically
expect, without concocting such a rediculous scenario that
evolutionists have done, the complex diversity observed in nature
today.
Gerard
>
> >Gerard: How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
>bpuharic: because some mistakes have functions. �sorry, sport. you're outta your
> league>
The enzymes within cells work to produce the exact copy of the cell's
dna. The intent within the cell in evolution theory is to maintain the
status quo. There are even enzymes which correct errors in the vast
majority of cases. Only a few errors get through according to
scientific understanding (I doubt observational). The prevalance of
mistakes through genetic drift, remaining accessible to a system which
works to NOT CHANGE would be deleted. Only a system capable and
programmed to allow changes, specified changes, would result in higher
development.
Gerard
protection
against malaria without the debilitating effects associated with
sickle cell disease.
The only examples used to demonstrate evolution fall within the mortal
role players. And that is correct I cannot disclaim that bacterias and
viruses and other diseases evolve and change. However, that is their
nature and it doens't relate with the theory of co-evolutionary
development of diverse complexity and distinctive characteristics in
nature. There's a huge difference here. One has to do with the
construction and the other has to do with the destruction, and the
roles of those destructers, and the limited abilities for life to
defend itself against them. This observation goes against both
intelligent design and natural evolution so there has to be middle
ground, or an alternative truth. The only answer worthy of considering
is the theolgical explanation regarding the fall of immortal nature to
mortal nature. This is evidenced in the cancer cells' enzymes
telemorase and their ability to reconstruct chromosomes to allow
infinite cell replication. Within mortal nature is the information for
immortality via the telamorase enzyme in cancer cells. If you want to
consider the greatest possible truth here, consider the immortal
nature of cells which work to be destrimental to life. This is almost
smoking gun evidence of designed death and disease by a designer or
creator who knows immortality. A life which creates life and destroys
life, while revealing its own eternal nature by the very function of
cells used in this life/death process. That would be God. That would
be a god whose focus is on higher things involving the creation. So
science seems to embrace the bible here, not anything else.
Gerard
> If you go to the trouble of replying to this post I will describe a
> simple set of steps for achieving wings in insects without the need
> for foreknowledge of any type. �I should be able to do the
> presentation in roughly four short paragraphs so you won't need to do
> a lot of reading either.
I'm game. I'm openminded on everything. Go for it.
aganunitsi
Yes, like sexual reproduction. A program specified to change exactly
half of my genetic code. Not randomly, either.
And what about transposons?
backspace
By evolution JH means his ancestor was a flea scratching baboon, what
do mean though with evolution?
Burkhard
something, it will fall to the ground, "objects falling to the ground"
are non random,. However, they are also not directed, unless you think
that if an object falls, little demons sit on it and push it down (The
Theory of Intelligent Falling, the only theory that is consistent with
John 6:16�21)
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 4, 2:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
>
> Gerard: That's not saying much.
Actually, it is. It shows that your argument is built on the false
premise that, and I quote "these mutations are detriments only "
> Saying mutations aren't always
> detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
> complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
> of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds.
No, but as there is no other testable mechanism whereby novelty can be
introduced into the genome, there is no reason to think that they are
*not* the mechanism whereby novelty is introduced into the genome.
> Its the
> universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
> functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
> formation of such diverse complexity.
...and we have a robust, testable theory for how such complex
structures can arise.
How do *you* think that complex systems arise, and how do *you*
propose to test your explanation?
> That's like saying a thousand
> deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
> brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
> BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling.
No, it isn't.
> Where are the
> crashing birds?
If you are referring to the intermediate stages by which birds evolved
from dinosaurs, they are there in the fossil record.
> The crashing insects?
>
> Yes, I am saying that every mutation is ultimately designed.
Well, bully for you.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion, and how do you
propose to test it?
> However,
> I believe there is random involved in terms of dispersal of genetic
> variations in the design database channeled into each species genomes.
Well, bully for you.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion, and how do you
propose to test it?
> And there is random involved in the carrying out of the detrimental
> decree of mortal nature by the designer or creator.
Why on earth would a "designer or creator" deliberately set out to
create mutations which cause suffering?
Apparently you worship a sadist.
> I believe
> mutations and evolution are true, but only in the sense of how they
> reveal the creative channeling used by the creator.
Well, bully for you.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion, and how do you
propose to test it?
> Science seems to
> back this to a high degree,
Not according to virtually every scientist with a knowledge of those
processes. What do you know that the people who have actually
*studied* the subject don't?
> although there are some difficulties.
..the most significant ones being that you have no evidence whatsoever
to back up your assertions and no alternative, testable theory which
explains the origin of biological novelty.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 4, 2:41�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> ?
>
>
>
> > Evolution is directly observed.>
>
> You mean change? I agree. We observe elusive behaviour in detrimental
> organisms and cells. We observe diversification.
It's called "evolution" by the people who actually *study* such
phenomena.
Why should we not use the word coined to describe it by the people who
study it?
> But we don't observe
> and cannot expect these and more complex developments to be caused by
> unplanned mutations in the ultimate sense. There is a controller,
> there is an overseer behind these changes.
What evidence do you have to support that assertion, and how do you
propose to test it?
> You cannot logically
> expect, without concocting such a rediculous scenario that
> evolutionists have done, the complex diversity observed in nature
> today.
So which aspects of the scenario proposed by evolutionary biologists
are "rediculous", and which alternative, testable hypothesis can you
offer which explains the evidence?
Of course, to answer that question you need to educate yourself in the
subject of evolutionary biology.
RF
Mike Dworetsky
> On Mar 4, 2:41 am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> ?
>>
>> Evolution is directly observed.>
>
> You mean change? I agree. We observe elusive behaviour in detrimental
> organisms and cells. We observe diversification. But we don't observe
> and cannot expect these and more complex developments to be caused by
> unplanned mutations in the ultimate sense. There is a controller,
> there is an overseer behind these changes. You cannot logically
I feel as if I have just wandered on to the movie set of "The Wizard of Oz".
"Uh....ignore that little man behind the curtain."
Your contrarian "theory" (in the sense of a wild-assed hopeful guess because
it supports your religious beliefs) claims a controller but doesn't say
anything about who or what he/she/it is or how it works (except possibly the
"mysterious ways" fallback).
However, magical pixies do not constitute a credible scientific explanation
of anything.
> expect, without concocting such a rediculous scenario that
> evolutionists have done, the complex diversity observed in nature
> today.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 2:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
>
>Gerard: That's not saying much. Saying mutations aren't always
>detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
>complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
>of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds.
actually it's not. it doesnt take long for a favorable mutation to
spread in populations. just look at bacterial resistance. you've
fallen flat on your face and now you're trying to pick yourself up out
of the dust
Its the
>universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
>functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
>formation of such diverse complexity. That's like saying a thousand
>deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
>brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
>BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling. Where are the
>crashing birds? The crashing insects?
word salad. no one knows what the terms 'coevolution of complex
structures' means since you creationists have a limited ability to
make yourselves understood.
you were wrong about mutations. just admit it and move on
>
>Yes, I am saying that every mutation is ultimately designed. However,
>I believe there is random involved in terms of dispersal of genetic
>variations in the design database channeled into each species genomes.
more garbage
if creationists knew anything about biology they would have discovered
the chemistry behind genetics. but they dont and they cant since their
thinking is limited to magical, childlike views of biology
>And there is random involved in the carrying out of the detrimental
>decree of mortal nature by the designer or creator. I believe
>mutations and evolution are true, but only in the sense of how they
>reveal the creative channeling used by the creator. Science seems to
>back this to a high degree, although there are some difficulties.
really? science backs this?
fine. you go get me a 'creative meter' so i can measure how much
creative force is around, OK
otherwise this is just more word cesspool overflow from a creationist
>
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 2:41�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
>?
>>
>> Evolution is directly observed.>
>
>You mean change? I agree. We observe elusive behaviour in detrimental
>organisms and cells. We observe diversification. But we don't observe
>and cannot expect these and more complex developments to be caused by
>unplanned mutations in the ultimate sense.
sure we observe it. we observe it in the fossil record as species
change with time. if your view of biology was correct, the fossil
record would be random; man would share his world with dinosaurs
your wizard driven view of nature has failed. that's why creationism
is dead
There is a controller,
>there is an overseer behind these changes. You cannot logically
>expect, without concocting such a rediculous scenario that
>evolutionists have done, the complex diversity observed in nature
>today.
and yet evolution
1. proposes a testable mechanism
2. successfully explains change
neither of which creationism has been able to do.
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>Chris: How is hemoglobin C detrimental? It provides significant
>protection
>against malaria without the debilitating effects associated with
>sickle cell disease.
>
>
>The only examples used to demonstrate evolution fall within the mortal
>role players
hey genius: guess what? that's EXACTLY what evolution predicts. death
or reproduction. finally you got it figured out!!
.. And that is correct I cannot disclaim that bacterias and
>viruses and other diseases evolve and change. However, that is their
>nature and it doens't relate with the theory of co-evolutionary
>development of diverse complexity and distinctive characteristics in
>nature.
more creationist garbage. 'diverse complexity'? 'distinctive
characteristics'? you seem to think the more words you use the more
you can explain
sorry, others have tried it before you. tony pagano, another
intellectually limited creationist, used to come here with his huge
treatises on 'evolutionary complexity' and other nonsense
it means nothing beyond your own failure
creationism is a 2000 year old failure it failed when explaining
earthquakes, weather, disease
and now it's failed in explaining life.
bpuharic
no you're not. creationists are not open minded at all. they're
gullible. there's a difference
>
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Mar 4, 6:12�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Gerard: How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
>> >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
>> >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
>> >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>>
>>bpuharic: because some mistakes have functions. �sorry, sport. you're outta your
>> league>
>
>The enzymes within cells work to produce the exact copy of the cell's
>dna.
and yet mistakes get made. go figure. you denying the existence of
mutations?
>The intent within the cell in evolution theory is to maintain the
>status quo.
there is no 'intent' inside a cell. there is simply chemistry.
chemistry has no 'intent'. y ou creationists keep trying to put demons
and angels in place of standard chemical processes
There are even enzymes which correct errors in the vast
>majority of cases. Only a few errors get through according to
>scientific understanding (I doubt observational).
again, you denying mutations exist? i suggest you read up on the work
of lenski at michigan state.
The prevalance of
>mistakes through genetic drift, remaining accessible to a system which
>works to NOT CHANGE would be deleted. Only a system capable and
>programmed to allow changes, specified changes, would result in higher
>development.
no one knows what 'higher' development means. it's more wizard of oz
theology trying to masquerade as science
you creationists have, for 2000 years, failed to explain ANY feature
of nature at all. yet you keep insisting demons and angels are all
over the place
sorry, they're not. they don't exist. chemistry exists. and it
explains mutations.
Jim
Why not? Why is there only a handful of basic patterns for life forms
on this planet? Why are there no vertebrate hexapods like griffins or
pegasi (pegasuses?) or centaurs or winged dragons? Why does
everything with legs (except starfish) have an even number of legs?
Why is terrestrial life bilaterally symmetrical and not radially
symmetrical? Why do all tetrapods have the same limb design (one bone
adjacent to the trunk, then a joint, then two bones, then a joint,
then a mess of bones)? Why not tentacles? Why don't any arthropods
have that design? Why did your controller limit itself so severely?
Further, why are the 'designs' out-and-out kludges? Why is the
panda's thumb a wrist bone? Why is the human spine a catenary curve?
Why do humans have a plantaris tendon? Why do whales have a pelvis?
Why aren't the designs optimal and unique rather than obvious
adaptations of something else? The mechanisms of evolution both
explain and predict all of this - you cannot. Look at the
similarities of life rather than the differences.
William Morse
which practice reproduction by homosexual stab-rape. I can only say that
I don't want to meet that designer in a dark alley.
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
Gerard> I believe mutations and evolution are true, but only in the
sense of how they reveal the creative channeling used by the creator.
richardalanforr>>Well, bully for you. What evidence do you have to
support that assertion, and how do you propose to test it?
Gerard> The channeling is observed. Through photonic mediated charges
of atomic elements causing chemical interaction and complex protein
formation. From proteins to enzymes to cells, right up to organic
life, their ordered functions in nature and their artistically
distinct diversity.
Gerard> Science seems to back this to a high degree,
richardalanforr>>Not according to virtually every scientist with a
knowledge of those processes. What do you know that the people who
have actually *studied* the subject don't?
Gerard>.Its not what I know, its what I'm willing to see. How many
physicists, chemists, biologists look at nature's workings with any
honest attempt to discern whether or not a creator might have been
involved?
richardalanforr>>.the most significant ones being that you have no
evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions and no alternative,
testable theory which explains the origin of biological novelty.
Gerard> How can you test after the fact? After the novel creations?
Frank J
> ?
>
>
>
> > Evolution is directly observed.>
>
> You mean change? I agree.
Specifically, do you agree with the great majority of evolution-
deniers who concede that "microevolution" has been observed, or do you
agree with Ray Martinez that not even "microevolution" has been
observed?
Note to TO regulars and lurkers: Yes I know that both Ray and the
"micro si, macro no" crowd define both M-words varuiably to suit the
argument.
(snip)
Gerard
bpuharic <<word salad. no one knows what the terms 'coevolution of
complex
structures' means since you creationists have a limited ability to
make yourselves understood.>>
Gerard: Am I to suppose that you think the bees, beetles, birds and
bats all shared the same evolutionary wing development sequence?
Coevolution is taught but is a convenient copout in order to avoid the
obvious conclusion, design.
Richard Smol
> The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
No.
John Stockwell
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
...you are forgetting that the system is highly parallelized.
>
> Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
> determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
Please learn about genetic algorithms.
>
> Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
> generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
> bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
Sorry, no genetic drift is a binary copying error.
>
> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> complex structures, like wings of flight for example.
Basically, biology operates by reusing existing parts with
modifications.
There is not "evolution from arm to wing". There is evolution to a
host
of variation on arms, some of which which lead to wings.
> The development
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
Sorry, no. There is no advanced programming operating. There is
a host of variations, the variations that promote reproduction being
those that get passed on. In a population.
> Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
> initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> to construct aerodynamic wings.
Take a gene, duplicate it. One copy can experience mutations while
the other keeps doing its normal job. Once in a great while, one of
the copies yields a different output that changes the path of descent
of the organism.
>
> How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
By looking at the data.
-John
Frank J
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 22:15:01 -0800 (PST), Gerard
>
Most rank and file creationists are gullible, but the activists have
an agenda to save the world, and will say whatever it takes to achieve
their goal, regardless of inconsistencies. So they - the ID variety at
least - are not so much closed minded as (paraphrasing Dawkins) "open-
minded" past the point where their brains fall out.
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fiery
> On Mar 4, 6:12�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >Gerard: How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> > >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> > >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> > >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
> >bpuharic: because some mistakes have functions. �sorry, sport. you're outta your
> > league>
>
> The enzymes within cells work to produce the exact copy of the cell's
> dna. The intent within the cell in evolution theory is to maintain the
> status quo. There are even enzymes which correct errors in the vast
> majority of cases. Only a few errors get through according to
> scientific understanding (I doubt observational).
You doubt? Have you checked if actual observations exist?
John Stockwell
You have to clear this sort of trash out of your brain. First of all,
there
is no "higher" or "lower" in biology. Biology isn't optimizing
anything.
It's just staying alive. The richness of structures that we see in
biology
all (every one) have the characteristic that they are composed of
recycled, reused, and modified parts that existed in predecessor
organisms. Yet, there is nothing "higher" about a wing. A wing is
good for flying, but not so good for digging holes in the ground or
swimming.
Kermit
> On Mar 4, 10:42 pm, Kermit <unrestrained_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What about
> > > people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
> > > that hill.
> > Perhaps you would care to quote from a textbook or manual on breeding
> > in which the magical difference between those two words is discussed?
>
> Words have no meaning.
Well, I'll grant that your words are light on meaning.
> Do you know what is the difference between a
> design and pattern and that any word even "non-random" can be used to
> symbolically represent chance and not directed,
False dichotomy.
"Directed" is not antonymous to "random".
Natural selection, for example, is not random, but neither is it
directed.
> as in "..... natural
> selection is non-random...."
Yes. Also sieves, and the rounding of rocks in moving water.
>
> Many authors say this but what they mean is "..... natural selection
> shall forever be absolute empire of accident, for strategic reasons,
> we are just using non-random but we don't mean directed...."
Um, no. I don't believe any author has ever meant that.
Just because *your words are devoid of meaning doesn't mean that other
people's are.
>
> Many time i have asked "do you mean directed with non-random" and the
> answer is always no.
That's because that is the correct answer.
> But either your house built itself or it was
> made.
Either somebody made the river rock round or ...nobody did.
> Either a manufacturing plant was directed or it made itself.
Why do you pick artificial processes and claim they justify your
peculiar claims? We, of course, repeat that no mind is involved in
natural selection, then you say "Is a mind involved in [some
artificial process] or not?"
Are rocks directed to roll downhill if dislodged, or is it simply the
biggest coincidence in the world that they do?
Are oxygen and hydrogen atoms directed to produce energy when they
combine as water, or is it just the biggest co-incidence in the
universe?
Does it hurt when you bang your thumb with a hammer, or is that simply
a random reaction? Does it ever cause an orgasm, make you laugh, feed
your hunger?
Kermit,
whose words all have meaning, and sometimes are even correct
Kermit
> On Mar 4, 2:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
>
> Gerard: That's not saying much. Saying mutations aren't always
> detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
> complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
> of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds. Its the
> universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
> functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
> formation of such diverse complexity. That's like saying a thousand
> deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
> brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
> BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling. Where are the
> crashing birds? The crashing insects?
No, it's more like immortal monkeys typing at typewriters, with an
editor checking all the results. Whenever a word or sentence makes
some kind of sense, he whips it out of the typewrite, and throws it on
the table.
If a word or phrase makes more sense than one on the table, he may
replace the older one.
He collects them into multiple piles, creating over the centuries
multiple stories. He has no particular story in mind, he just accepts
and sorts from the scraps he is reading.
Do you see how, with *billions of monkey-typed scraps, and hundreds of
millions of years, he may end up with a large and varied collection of
stories?
Evolution doesn't have to come up with a genome from scratch; not
ever. It never did that.
It builds on what came before.
What came before is constantly modified by mutations and
recombinations. If nature "doesn't like" (if the inheritable trait is
detrimental for that environment), it is rejected. If it is neutral,
it may spread, slowly. If it is beneficial, it will spread rapidly
(probably). Multiple sorting is going on in every generation. A
population of ten thousand might see a thousand detrimental phenotypes
from mutations; they die or disappear over time because they spread
less rapidly. There might be a hundred beneficial traits in a hundred
different individuals. In a few tens of generations, all or nearly all
individuals have all or nearly all *of *those *traits. And this is
happening in every generation.
If you were dealt a hundred hands in bridge, and got to keep the one
you wanted...
And were given a hundred responses when you asked for a card, and got
to keep the response you liked...
What are the odds that you would win?
>
> Yes, I am saying that every mutation is ultimately designed.
No evidence for it. Why would they be designed to *look random?
> However,
> I believe there is random involved in terms of dispersal of genetic
> variations in the design database channeled into each species genomes.
What database is channeled into genomes? What are you talking about?
> And there is random involved in the carrying out of the detrimental
> decree of mortal nature by the designer or creator.
[...]
The creator kills or cripples randomly?
> I believe
> mutations and evolution are true, but only in the sense of how they
> reveal the creative channeling used by the creator. Science seems to
> back this to a high degree, although there are some difficulties.
It doesn't back it at all. But there's certainly no way to refute the
idea of an omnipotent creator who want to hide.
Kermit
Frank J
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
We have heard that thousands of times, so the least you can do is cite
your source instead of pretending that it's your idea. What we almost
never hear is what other other processes supposedly operates in lieu
of "random mutations, genetic drift, natural selection and migration."
And *when* did they occur? And *where*, specifically did any of them
occur in-vivo, or did each event require the origin of a new organism?
So how about it? Instead of pathetically parroting the same old long-
refuted incredulity arguments, why not be the first to actually
propose *and test* your answers to those questions?
(snip)
Desertphile
<steph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 9:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> > >complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> > >artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> > >successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
> > The above is an argument from personal incredulity. Given an appropriate
> > landscape, stochastic hill climbing searches (variation and selection)
> > can be highly effective.
> Certainly if somebody made a decision by selecting for an outcome. But
> then again you are using "selection" in the pattern sense? What about
> people who would use "selection" in the design sense when climbing
> that hill.
99.9999% of the species that have ever lived on Earth were not
designed.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
"Lotta soon to die punks here." -- igotskillz22
Gerard
Gerard: You cannot logically expect, without concocting such a
rediculous scenario that evolutionists have done, the complex
diversity observed in nature today.
Jim: Why not? Why is there only a handful of basic patterns for life
forms
on this planet? Why are there no vertebrate hexapods like griffins or
pegasi (pegasuses?) or centaurs or winged dragons? Why does
everything with legs (except starfish) have an even number of legs?
Why is terrestrial life bilaterally symmetrical and not radially
symmetrical? Why do all tetrapods have the same limb design (one bone
adjacent to the trunk, then a joint, then two bones, then a joint,
then a mess of bones)? Why not tentacles? Why don't any arthropods
have that design? Why did your controller limit itself so severely?
Further, why are the 'designs' out-and-out kludges? Why is the
panda's thumb a wrist bone? Why is the human spine a catenary curve?
Why do humans have a plantaris tendon? Why do whales have a pelvis?
Why aren't the designs optimal and unique rather than obvious
adaptations of something else? The mechanisms of evolution both
explain and predict all of this - you cannot. Look at the
similarities of life rather than the differences.
Gerard: First, I feel the designer did an adequate job, covering all
water, air and land creatures of all shapes and sizes. This generative
way of creating complex and diverse life isn't any different than the
shared photonic traits in atoms, the shared atomic traits of
chemicals, the shared chemical traits in proteins, the shared proteins
in enzymes, the shared enzymes in cells, the shared structure in
organisms. Its all orderly. Its all channeled. And yes, all life
relates because they share the same creation process. No problem.
Gerard
bp>>creationism is a 2000 year old failure it failed when explaining
earthquakes, weather, disease and now it's failed in explaining life.
Creationism itself won't explain the earthquakes, other natural
disasters and disease. It can explain the disease and the life/death
balance in nature. But I admit I have trouble with the random natural
disasters. Especially when they seem to hurt the "meek" of the earth.
I really struggle with that. All I have is the thought that God may
use the meek to do his work, to give people a chance to help. To test
the people as he did in biblical times to see if they will obey and
"love their neighbor". But the death and disease processes, our mortal
nature was explained after the original sin which we all committed.
Iain
<snip>
The course of evolution is determined by non-random selection, not
mutation. Mutation just provides variation in a single generation.
This acts like a small range of compass points for each generation.
It's selection which 'takes the step'. It easy for mutation to be
beneficial, because it is only a small modification upon something
that has already been selected, therefore adequate.
--Iain
Desertphile
> On Mar 4, 2:41�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> ?
> >
> > Evolution is directly observed.>
>
> You mean change? I agree.
No, idiot, he wrote "evolution." Evolution is an observed fact.
Adjust your bias.
Ray Martinez
> The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> selection and migration.
>
> genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
> determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
>
> generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
> bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
>
> declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
> initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> to construct aerodynamic wings.
>
> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
Since the Atheist has no choice but accept evolution, your points will
fall on deaf ears.
Ray
Friar Broccoli
> On Mar 4, 6:09 pm, Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data
>>> is being declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind
>>> the creation of complex structures, like wings of flight for
>>> example. The development of wings would require coordinated
>>> and errorlessly successive data inputs into the host's limb
>>> with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws. Logic alone tells us
>>> this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of initial
>>> mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural
>>> selection because that new information enabled a slight
>>> advantage), the very same cells descendants would then have
>>> to get it right for thousands of generations without
>>> replication errors in order to sequentially construct that
>>> which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how to
>>> construct aerodynamic wings.
.
>> If you go to the trouble of replying to this post I will
>> describe a simple set of steps for achieving wings in insects
>> without the need for foreknowledge of any type. I should be
>> able to do the presentation in roughly four short paragraphs
>> so you won't need to do a lot of reading either.
.
> I'm game. I'm openminded on everything. Go for it.
Insects have legs. The mutation of a gene that controls the location
of legs could easily put an extra pair of legs at the top of the
thorax.
Many insects live in trees. Some flightless insects that live in
trees (like the ant Cephalotes atratus) have various adaptations to
control their falls from the forest canopy - they instead glide to a
nearby branch or tree trunk. This saves them from death if they had
fallen in water or mud, or too near a predator. If the could have
found their home tree it also saves them from a long tiring walk back
up.
Presumably an extra pair of legs sticking out of the top of an insects
thorax could also be adapted for more controlled fall, and thus
provide an immediate evolutionary advantage.
Thereafter, tiny mutations to increase muscle control and broaden the
wing/legs would add incremental advantages until full wings had
developed - all without foreknowledge.
Note that I do not know what really happen. The above is just
speculation, but it demonstrates that flight can be achieved via
simple incremental steps.
Thanks for answering.
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
RF>>So which aspects of the scenario proposed by evolutionary
biologists
are "rediculous", and which alternative, testable hypothesis can you
offer which explains the evidence?
Of course, to answer that question you need to educate yourself in the
subject of evolutionary biology>>
Gerard: You cannot fully identify many of the processes behind the
channeling of life on earth because they are too small or invisible.
However, we know for example that there can be no atoms without
photons but there can be no photons without energy emitted from atomic
material, causing a chicken/egg scenario. But we know the roles of
photons in atoms and can conclude that there had to be photons from
matterless energy. Why at the subatomic level do certain atomic roles
get dictated? To produce the very material world we are a part of. Now
the same way that atoms are directed to create the stars and chemicals
in our universe, and life creating proteins on earth is the same way
that the proteins and cells were tuned or programmed to create the
distinctive qualities in life. The only thing we don't know is the
input points of these directives in life cells. How mutations are
achieved on purpose. I think there's enough evidence to assume that
each cell has a separate sub-atomic directive (alteration or steering
of enzymic activity within the cells). This is purely a layman's view,
but how many biologists or chemists are even entertaining such a
possibility? And if they are not, why not? What makes them so gullible
to think that this all just happened without questioning themselves
and their interpretation of what the evidence presents to them on a
regular basis?
The mutations we observe today and attribute as evidence for how life
developed may be completely false assumption based on a lack of a
better understanding or better explanation. Theology gave us the
reasons for those deterimental and beneficial mutations any time in
history, depending on which mutations you are addressing. The ones
which mutate and change at the viral or bacterial, or carcinogenic
level may well be different than those mutations in cells of past
limbs and organs which were used to diversify functionality and
distinction in kinds and species. You must be openminded to find the
possible answers. I am openminded and I find creative possibilities
but cannot find any reason, any logic behind the miraculous diversity
and beauty and order we observe in nature as being from something
unordered. Art is art and we see the complex detail in each specific
sample studied.
Gerard
bpuharic <<and yet evolution
1. proposes a testable mechanism
2. successfully explains change>>
You cannot test evolution. Yes, it explains change but doesn't explain
the DETAIL needed to achieve the complex improvements. One would
almost have to surrender to a conclusion that the enzymes inside cells
are the designers. I'm not going to credit complex proteins, which
needed designers themselves. We have to give a nod somewhere. We have
to attribute the intelligibility of life to an intelligent life
outside of laws created to house and develop this life we are a part
of. Especially if that life, that designer communicated to us, not
only our role to serve the common good, but one which revealed the
required attributes needed to qualify AS THE DESIGNER. Yes, its'
Jesus, it has to be. He is time transcendent and has demonstrated
physical transcendency. He has also explained the reasons behind the
harmful mutations we observe in life. Everything is seen using science
and theology. They mesh. It's all there.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 5, 4:30 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> Gerard> I believe mutations and evolution are true, but only in the
> sense of how they reveal the creative channeling used by the creator.
>
> richardalanforr>>Well, bully for you. What evidence do you have to
> support that assertion, and how do you propose to test it?
>
> Gerard> The channeling is observed. Through photonic mediated charges
> of atomic elements causing chemical interaction and complex protein
> formation.
As such processes operate in a purely deterministic way, how on earth
do reveal "creative channeling"?
> From proteins to enzymes to cells, right up to organic
> life, their ordered functions in nature and their artistically
> distinct diversity.
So, in other words you have no evidence to support your assertion
(handwaving ain't evidence) and no way of testing it.
>
> Gerard> Science seems to back this to a high degree,
>
> richardalanforr>>Not according to virtually every scientist with a
> knowledge of those processes. What do you know that the people who
> have actually *studied* the subject don't?
>
> Gerard>.Its not what I know, its what I'm willing to see.
Actually, it about what you know - or don't know. You claim that
science "seems to back this", but as you demonstrate a profound and
dogmatic ignorance of science, how on earth do you know?
> How many
> physicists, chemists, biologists look at nature's workings with any
> honest attempt to discern whether or not a creator might have been
> involved?
If you can propose an honest way in which the involvement of a creator
can be tested using the tools of science, feel free to offer it. That
means proposing a potential observation or measurement which could
*not* be "explained" by the involvement of a creator.
Over to you.
>
> richardalanforr>>.the most significant ones being that you have no
> evidence whatsoever to back up your assertions and no alternative,
> testable theory which explains the origin of biological novelty.
>
> Gerard> How can you test after the fact? After the novel creations?
We don't test after the fact. We have observed the emergence of
biological novelty both in nature and in the laboratory. It's a fact
that it happens.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 5, 4:32 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> RF>>So which aspects of the scenario proposed by evolutionary
> biologists
> are "rediculous", and which alternative, testable hypothesis can you
> offer which explains the evidence?
>
> Of course, to answer that question you need to educate yourself in the
> subject of evolutionary biology>>
>
> Gerard: You cannot fully identify many of the processes behind the
> channeling of life on earth because they are too small or invisible.
Why on earth not? We can investigate the most basic components of
matter and energy.
> However, we know for example that there can be no atoms without
> photons but there can be no photons without energy emitted from atomic
> material, causing a chicken/egg scenario.
Emm, no. We don't "know that". In fact, if you bother to educate
yourself in science you'll find that your assertion is a load of
bollocks.
> But we know the roles of
> photons in atoms and can conclude that there had to be photons from
> matterless energy. Why at the subatomic level do certain atomic roles
> get dictated? To produce the very material world we are a part of. Now
> the same way that atoms are directed to create the stars and chemicals
> in our universe, and life creating proteins on earth is the same way
> that the proteins and cells were tuned or programmed to create the
> distinctive qualities in life.
What on earth has this rambling nonsense and unevidenced assertions to
do with evolutionary theory?
> The only thing we don't know is the
> input points of these directives in life cells. How mutations are
> achieved on purpose.
The evidence - which you refuse to address - shows that mutations
occur at random in respect of fitness.
How does this demonstrate "purpose"?
> I think there's enough evidence to assume that
> each cell has a separate sub-atomic directive (alteration or steering
> of enzymic activity within the cells).
You may think this, but as you are clearly utterly ignorant of the
evidence supporting evolutionary theory, so what? Empty assertion and
handwaving is not evidence, no matter how much you may wish it to be
so.
> This is purely a layman's view,
Very obviously. Why should we take any notice of it?
> but how many biologists or chemists are even entertaining such a
> possibility? And if they are not, why not?
Because there is no evidence to support your assertions and no way of
testing them using the tools of science.
Seems very reasonable to me.
> What makes them so gullible
> to think that this all just happened without questioning themselves
> and their interpretation of what the evidence presents to them on a
> regular basis?
Do you really think that scientists don't question their
interpretations of the evidence?
>
> The mutations we observe today and attribute as evidence for how life
> developed may be completely false
assumption based on a lack of a
> better understanding or better explanation.
Quite so. However, unless someone offers an alternative explanation
which can be tested using the tools of science there is no reason to
think that the existing explanations are not sound.
> Theology gave us the
> reasons for those deterimental and beneficial mutations any time in
> history, depending on which mutations you are addressing.
It did? How does theology explain the fact that mutations are random
in respect of fitness?
> The ones
> which mutate and change at the viral or bacterial, or carcinogenic
> level may well be different than those mutations in cells of past
> limbs and organs which were used to diversify functionality and
> distinction in kinds and species.
And how do you propose to test this using the tools of science?
> You must be openminded to find the
> possible answers.
Quite so. Scientists are, contrary to your beliefs, very open-minded.
However, unlike you they understand the evidence on which their
hypotheses are based and the ways in which the tools of science can be
used to investigate alternatives.
> I am openminded and I find creative possibilities
> but cannot find any reason, any logic behind the miraculous diversity
> and beauty and order we observe in nature as being from something
> unordered. Art is art and we see the complex detail in each specific
> sample studied.
Well bully for you.
Unfortunately you are also deeply ignorant not only of the evidence
which supports evolutionary theory and science in general.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Mar 5, 6:27 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> bpuharic <<and yet evolution
>
> 1. proposes �a testable mechanism
> 2. successfully explains change>>
>
> You cannot test evolution.
No, but we can observe evolution. We can formulate theories which
explain *how* evolution happens which make predictions which can and
have been tested by the acquisition of further evidence.
>Yes, it explains change but doesn't explain
> the DETAIL needed to achieve the complex improvements.
As a scientist working in the field I can assure you that we know in
enormous detail how "complex improvements" evolve. There is a vast
scientific literature on the subject.
> One would
> almost have to surrender to a conclusion that the enzymes inside cells
> are the designers.
Not if one has an understanding of how enzymes function.
> I'm not going to credit complex proteins, which
> needed designers themselves. We have to give a nod somewhere. We have
> to attribute the intelligibility of life to an intelligent life
> outside of laws created to house and develop this life we are a part
> of.
Why?
> Especially if that life, that designer communicated to us, not
> only our role to serve the common good, but one which revealed the
> required attributes needed to qualify AS THE DESIGNER. Yes, its'
> Jesus, it has to be. He is time transcendent and has demonstrated
> physical transcendency. He has also explained the reasons behind the
> harmful mutations we observe in life. Everything is seen using science
> and theology. They mesh. It's all there.
More empty and unevidenced assertions.
RF
Boikat
Sorry, but "design", as in "intelligent designer" is the cop-out.
Steven L.
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8cd8a9ee-d5cc-4d49...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 2:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
>
> Gerard: That's not saying much. Saying mutations aren't always
> detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
> complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
> of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds. Its the
> universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
> functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
> formation of such diverse complexity. That's like saying a thousand
> deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
> brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
> BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling. Where are the
> crashing birds? The crashing insects?
That's because shuffling a deck of cards produces a totally independent
random trial each time.
But with life forms, mutation is then accompanied by *selection* and
*inheritance*. Mutations are random, but the next generation *inherits*
those mutations, something that doesn't happen between shuffling of
decks of cards.
The desirable traits, in the genome of the creature, are passed down to
his descendants. This acts as a sifting process, sifting out the most
undesirable traits with each new generation.
Learn something about genetic algorithms. We engineers have used them
to solve complex problems. They also work by mutation and inheritance
and selection.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
wrote in message
news:2a815941-819f-4870...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> If you can propose an honest way in which the involvement of a creator
> can be tested using the tools of science, feel free to offer it. That
> means proposing a potential observation or measurement which could
> *not* be "explained" by the involvement of a creator.
The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" suggested one possibility: The
unambiguous evidence of a Creator may have been deliberately *hidden* by
Him. Until a sufficiently enlightened civilization--one starting to ask
deep questions about its origins--finally possessed the knowledge to
uncover it.
Where might such unambiguous evidence be hidden? Here are some
proposals:
1. Deep in the digital or binary sequence expansion of some
transcendental number: pi, e, etc.
2. Orbiting at the Lagrangian points of Earth's orbit.
3. Encoded in our DNA. Our DNA looks like it's totally the product of
random mutations. But perhaps some cryptographer could discover a
pattern in it that most scientists have missed--a pattern that reveals
conscious intelligence.
4. Buried on some other planet. Unlike the movie, I think the right
place to look would be Pluto. Because the deep cold would preserve any
artifacts indefinitely.
If SETI received a message from some ultra-advanced civilization, and
part of that message read "We created you humans, you know"--that would
end ALL this speculation. Both science and religion would have to be
drastically revised.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1bb6bfc7-f253-43ac...@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 5, 4:32�am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> RF>>So which aspects of the scenario proposed by evolutionary
> biologists
> are "rediculous", and which alternative, testable hypothesis can you
> offer which explains the evidence?
>
> Of course, to answer that question you need to educate yourself in the
> subject of evolutionary biology>>
>
> Gerard: You cannot fully identify many of the processes behind the
> channeling of life on earth because they are too small or invisible.
> However, we know for example that there can be no atoms without
> photons but there can be no photons without energy emitted from atomic
> material, causing a chicken/egg scenario. But we know the roles of
> photons in atoms and can conclude that there had to be photons from
> matterless energy. Why at the subatomic level do certain atomic roles
> get dictated?
They don't get dictated.
Those pesky quantum *uncertainties* have to be taken into account in the
design of all those micro-chips in your personal computer. Intel, AMD,
deal with them all the time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070302111106.htm
> I find creative possibilities
> but cannot find any reason, any logic behind the miraculous diversity
> and beauty and order we observe in nature as being from something
> unordered.
There is beautiful order in the Universe.
But what you don't seem to accept is that with the right physical laws,
order can arise from disorder.
Hurricanes have a beautiful spiral shape with a central "eye."
Snowflakes are beautifully six-sided.
They weren't designed.
They arose naturally from chemical and physical laws.
Now if you want to say that God created this Universe along with its
basic four forces of nature, that wouldn't be inconsistent with science.
It would say that God set up the initial conditions of this Universe
in hopes that intelligent beings would arise someday, somewhere,
somehow. That may have happened more than once in this
Universe--meaning that beings all over the Universe worship the same
God.
As I've said before, the only religious position that is consistent with
modern science is some form of Deism.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:fc4cfce6-23be-485c...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 5, 12:53�am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2:41�am, VoiceOfReason <papa_...@cybertown.com> wrote:
> > ?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Evolution is directly observed.>
> >
> > You mean change? I agree.
>
> Specifically, do you agree with the great majority of evolution-
> deniers who concede that "microevolution" has been observed, or do you
> agree with Ray Martinez that not even "microevolution" has been
> observed?
I think "Gerard" believes that evolution occurred, but it was *directed*
by some Designer.
The truth is he's being more honest about this than Ken Miller, who uses
weasel words like "A God *could have* manipulated quantum uncertainties
to affect mutations...."
We keep coming back to the same issue: If you believe in God, where
does He fit in to the history of the Universe?
Look, the vast majority of modern Christians and Jews accept some form
of theistic evolution. They accept the ToE but they also believe God
was *ultimately* responsible for it all, perhaps by starting off the
process with the first replicating molecules in the primordial Earth.
That's not creationism. But it's not secularism either.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:f2cc94fb-a17a-48ba...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> Chris: How is hemoglobin C detrimental? It provides significant
> protection
> against malaria without the debilitating effects associated with
> sickle cell disease.
>
>
> The only examples used to demonstrate evolution fall within the mortal
> role players. And that is correct I cannot disclaim that bacterias and
> viruses and other diseases evolve and change. However, that is their nature
African-Americans are more prone to sickle-cell anemia than white
Europeans. Why?
It's because that gene for sickle-cell anemia made them partly resistant
to malaria, which was a big problem in AFrica but not so in Europe. So
over time, those Africans with sickle-cell anemia survived the malaria
plagues and produced progeny who also had that gene.
You're not suggesting God gave these Africans anemia, are you?
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Ron O" <roki...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:323b4c04-63b1-4cd7...@33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
> On Mar 4, 12:11�am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The evolution theory has a serious problem regarding the mechanics it
> > attributes to the development of complex life. The basic mechanisms
> > attributed to evolution are random mutations, genetic drift, natural
> > selection and migration.
> >
> > Random mutations are unplanned or accidental replications of cells'
> > genetic information. As we observe throughout science today, these
> > mutations are detriments only and cannot conclusively be attributed to
> > stress induced errors in cell replication (Note that science cannot
> > determine whether these were programmed or not, yet they assume them
> > not to be intended mutations so they call them random).
> >
> > Genetic drift deals with random dispersal of these new traits over
> > generations until they become useful to the particular host's organ or
> > structure. And this is where natural selection comes in because if
> > they do become useful and beneficial, the host species will survive
> > and thrive. Then they migrate and the good migrations into safe or
> > bountiful environments allow that species to thrive even more. That's
> > the theory of evolution in a nutshell.
> >
> > The problem with all of this is that the miscopying of data is being
> > declared by evolution as the ultimate cause behind the creation of
> > complex structures, like wings of flight for example. The development
> > of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> > inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
> > Logic alone tells us this: If miscopying by enzymes were the cause of
> > initial mutations, and genetic drift occurred, (then natural selection
> > because that new information enabled a slight advantage), the very
> > same cells descendants would then have to get it right for thousands
> > of generations without replication errors in order to sequentially
> > construct that which the host limb's cells couldn't know...namely, how
> > to construct aerodynamic wings.
> >
> > How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
> > complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
> > artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
> > successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
> Just face the facts. The main problem that the theory of biological
> evolution has is dealing with nitwits that do not want to understand
> the theory, but still want to criticize it.
No.
The problem is the same it's always been: how can someone who deeply
believes in the Judeo-Christian God reconcile that belief with the ToE?
If the ToE is correct, then what, if anything, has God done to affect
our origins?
Gerard strikes me as thoughtful. And as someone who fears that the ToE
*implies* that God had absolutely nothing to do with our being on this
planet. He's looking for some way to fit God into the process.
Well, so is Ken Miller. Ken Miller also waves his hands about quantum
uncertainty and how a supernatural being may have tweaked things one way
or the other.
The problem is that modern science keeps "squeezing" God out of the
picture, everywhere. And for a religious people like Americans, that's
not good.
Ken Miller has it right: The ToE won't be accepted by the pious until
we can come up with a convincing explanation for where God fits into all
this.
Mine is Deism. I don't see any other one that survives careful
scrutiny.
-- Steven L.
Desertphile
<richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 7:11�am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > The development
> > of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> > inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
> No.
"Gerard's" false assert is so not right, it isn't even wrong. If
his false assertion were true, wings would notv exist on Earth
until humans came along to design them--- which is clearly not the
case.
Desertphile
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:27�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> bpuharic <<and yet evolution
>
> 1. proposes a testable mechanism
> 2. successfully explains change>>
> You cannot test evolution.
Nobody claims one can test evolution. Evolutionary theory however
can be tested and has been tested, many tens of thousands of
times, for the past 150 years.
Why are you lying to us? Do your gods approve of your behavior?
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> How can science with all of its knowledge and intellectualism expect
>> complex structure and organ development as well as the structurally
>> artistic distinctions between such diverse life, all to be from
>> successive mistakes utilized, well, unmistakably?
>
> Since the Atheist has no choice but accept evolution, your points will
> fall on deaf ears.
"The atheist" of course has many choices other than to accept evolution,
just as religionists have many choices. The reason why evolution is
overwhelmingly accepted by educated persons is that it's the best
scientific explanation for the evidence.
If you come up with a better explanation for the evidence, atheists, or
anyone else would consider it. Just because you, Ray, are closed
minded, that doesn't mean everyone else is.
DJT
Ernest Major
<4bf5c0e5-e475-4455...@e7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> writes
>On Mar 5, 6:25�am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>bpuharic <<word salad. no one knows what the terms 'coevolution of
>complex
>structures' means since you creationists have a limited ability to
>make yourselves understood.>>
>
>Gerard: Am I to suppose that you think the bees, beetles, birds and
>bats all shared the same evolutionary wing development sequence?
No. Only bees and beetles for some of their history.
>Coevolution is taught but is a convenient copout in order to avoid the
>obvious conclusion, design.
>
I don't think that coevolution means what you think it means; the word
you may be looking for is convergence.
An assertion that design is "the obvious conclusion" is insufficient.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<cfbf3620-4e52-4248...@k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>On Mar 6, 4:52�am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 6:27 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> bpuharic <<and yet evolution
>>
>> 1. proposes �a testable mechanism
>> 2. successfully explains change>>
>>
>> You cannot test evolution.
>
>No, but we can observe evolution. We can formulate theories which
>explain *how* evolution happens which make predictions which can and
>have been tested by the acquisition of further evidence.
We can test evolution (or if one is finicky about language, the theory
of evolution) as well. Every time someone sequences a new bit of DNA
they're testing the theory of evolution. Every time someone studies a
new fossil they're testing the theory of evolution.
>
>>Yes, it explains change but doesn't explain
>> the DETAIL needed to achieve the complex improvements.
>
>As a scientist working in the field I can assure you that we know in
>enormous detail how "complex improvements" evolve. There is a vast
>scientific literature on the subject.
>
>> One would
>> almost have to surrender to a conclusion that the enzymes inside cells
>> are the designers.
>
>Not if one has an understanding of how enzymes function.
>
>> I'm not going to credit complex proteins, which
>> needed designers themselves. We have to give a nod somewhere. We have
>> to attribute the intelligibility of life to an intelligent life
>> outside of laws created to house and develop this life we are a part
>> of.
>
>Why?
>
>> Especially if that life, that designer communicated to us, not
>> only our role to serve the common good, but one which revealed the
>> required attributes needed to qualify AS THE DESIGNER. Yes, its'
>> Jesus, it has to be. He is time transcendent and has demonstrated
>> physical transcendency. He has also explained the reasons behind the
>> harmful mutations we observe in life. Everything is seen using science
>> and theology. They mesh. It's all there.
>
>More empty and unevidenced assertions.
>
>RF
>
--
alias Ernest Major
chris thompson
> Chris: How is hemoglobin C detrimental? It provides significant
> protection
> against malaria without the debilitating effects associated with
> sickle cell disease.
>
> The only examples used to demonstrate evolution fall within the mortal
> role players. And that is correct I cannot disclaim that bacterias and
> viruses and other diseases evolve and change. However, that is their
> development of diverse complexity and distinctive characteristics in
> nature. There's a huge difference here. One has to do with the
> construction and the other has to do with the destruction, and the
> roles of those destructers, and the limited abilities for life to
> defend itself against them. This observation goes against both
> intelligent design and natural evolution so there has to be middle
> ground, or an alternative truth. The only answer worthy of considering
> is the theolgical explanation regarding the fall of immortal nature to
> mortal nature. This is evidenced in the cancer cells' enzymes
> telemorase and their ability to reconstruct chromosomes to allow
> infinite cell replication. Within mortal nature is the information for
> immortality via the telamorase enzyme in cancer cells. If you want to
> consider the greatest possible truth here, consider the immortal
> nature of cells which work to be destrimental to life. This is almost
> smoking gun evidence of designed death and disease by a designer or
> creator who knows immortality. A life which creates life and destroys
> life, while revealing its own eternal nature by the very function of
> cells used in this life/death process. That would be God. That would
> be a god whose focus is on higher things involving the creation. So
> science seems to embrace the bible here, not anything else.
Could use please make your point using language?
Chris
Ernest Major
<3f14df10-e3f9-48fb...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Friar Broccoli <eli...@gmail.com> writes
One theory was that insect wings originated as outgrowths of the thorax
for thermal regulation. When they became big enough they were co-opted
for gliding and subsequently flight.
I've also seen it suggested that insect wings are homologous to the
swimming legs of crustaceans (insects are derived crustaceans). But I
don't see how this is to be reconciled with the basal phylogenetic
position of apterygote insects (unless the suggestions of insect
non-monophyly are correct).
>
>Thereafter, tiny mutations to increase muscle control and broaden the
>wing/legs would add incremental advantages until full wings had
>developed - all without foreknowledge.
>
>Note that I do not know what really happen. The above is just
>speculation, but it demonstrates that flight can be achieved via
>simple incremental steps.
>
>Thanks for answering.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > evolution has is dealing with nitwits that do not want to understand
> > the theory, but still want to criticize it.
>
> No.
> believes in the Judeo-Christian God reconcile that belief with the ToE? 嚙�> If the ToE is correct, then what, if anything, has God done to affect
> our origins?
>
> Gerard strikes me as thoughtful. 嚙璀nd as someone who fears that the ToE
> *implies* that God had absolutely nothing to do with our being on this
>
> Well, so is Ken Miller. 嚙皺en Miller also waves his hands about quantum
> uncertainty and how a supernatural being may have tweaked things one way
> or the other.
>
> The problem is that modern science keeps "squeezing" God out of the
> not good.
>
> Ken Miller has it right: 嚙確he ToE won't be accepted by the pious until
> we can come up with a convincing explanation for where God fits into all
> this.
>
> scrutiny.
>
> -- Steven L.-
You might as well just make something up because God isn't saying one
way or the other. Which brings us back to they don't understand
evolution and still want ti criticize it. Willful ignorance because
you do not want to accept something because of your religious beliefs
is still the facts of life. What does it matter about why they are in
denial? The effect is the same.
Ron Okimoto
Kermit
Well, this is certainly true for me, since I am compelled to believe
rational and testable explanations for observable data. However, many
atheists are poorly educated, and some are conceivably as irrational
as you, and may accept some strange alternative to science (e.g.
Raelianism). They would not, of course, think that a creator god
created us or they wouldn't be atheists, would they?
> your points will fall on deaf ears.
As do data on yours.
>
> Ray
Kermit
Friar Broccoli
> In message
> <3f14df10-e3f9-48fb-9ba9-5fbf13d44...@d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes
I read several articles with proposals like this but found them too
complicated for the purposes of this discussion, even though I know
they came from experts who must certainly have considered leg
modification and rejected it for good reasons. I liked legs because
they are already extended and come with a pre-existing package of
nerves and muscles for quick adaptation.
John Harshman
Depends on what you mean by "insect". If you mean "Insecta", I don't
think anyone disagrees about their monophyly. If you mean "Hexapoda",
there are plenty of doubts. It does turn out, though, that many of the
same genes are involved in the development of wings and crustacean
exopods. Could be primitive, in which case apterygotes (not springtails
etc. but silverfish etc.) may have lost something. Or it could be
independently recruited. Or it may be in fact that the homology is in
parts of the pleural skeleton. I don't know if anyone has looked at the
developmental genetics of silverfish pleurae. Do you?
There are also those intriguing fossils, apparently nymphs, with
multiple pairs of winglike structures.
Bob T.
> "Gerard" <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8cd8a9ee-d5cc-4d49...@g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Mar 4, 2:15�am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Mutations are not universally detrimental. >
>
> > Gerard: That's not saying much. Saying mutations aren't always
> > detrimental is a far cry from qualifying them as mechanisms for
> > complex aerodynamic design in wings of insects, wings of birds, wings
> > of mammals, even fish, and aerodynamic behaviour in seeds. Its the
> > universality, the co-evolution of complex structures, complex
> > functionality which rules out any abberational nature behind the
> > formation of such diverse complexity. That's like saying a thousand
> > deck of cards, shuffled and reshuffled, over millions of years, all
> > brought out royal flushes at this same time AND THEN CONTINUED TO
> > BRING OUT ROYAL FLUSHES without anymore reshuffling. Where are the
> > crashing birds? The crashing insects?
>
> That's because shuffling a deck of cards produces a totally independent
> random trial each time.
Exactly. Evolution is more like dealing out a hand of five cards,
keeping any that are part of a royal flush, discarding the rest, and
then redealing. Over and over and over again.
- Bob T
Friar Broccoli
> > Friar Broccoli <elia...@gmail.com> writes
I just looked up exopod in many locations and it appears that many
insect appendages including some legs and antenna have that as their
origin, so if I understand your comment my leg speculation might be
plausible. Are you willing to push a leg?
John Harshman
Vaguely. Arthropod legs are primitively biramous, and it's the outer
part that may be homologous to insect wings, while it's the inner part
that's homologous to insect legs. It looked as if you were proposing a
homeotic mutation producing ectopic legs, which is definitely not a good
scenario.
Gerard
cards,
keeping any that are part of a royal flush, discarding the rest, and
then redealing. Over and over and over again."
Gerard: That suggests that the "royal flush" was pre-known. The
requirements for complex aerodynamicly functioning wings were
preknown. And since mutations are accidental, bogus shuffling would've
discarded parts of that royal flush along the way time and time again.
No wings, no complex life system whatsoever, would've been
established. The problem with evolution is their teaching of random
creation of essential parts required to establish complex structures
and functions allowing life to live and to thrive. Intelligent design
of these complex functions and every essential part generated
throughout history was and is the rule. The fact of life.
hersheyh
> Bob "Exactly. �Evolution is more like dealing out a hand of five
> cards,
> keeping any that are part of a royal flush, discarding the rest, and
> then redealing. �Over and over and over again."
>
> Gerard: That suggests that the "royal flush" was pre-known.
Or that the environment favors hands that are closer to rather than
further from "royal flushes". That isn't true for poker hands which
is a problem with the analogy but not the concept.
> The
> requirements for complex aerodynamicly functioning wings were
> preknown.
And there are intermediate states that have utility. Some can have
utility without being modern fully functional wings. In the land of
the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
> And since mutations are accidental, bogus shuffling would've
> discarded parts of that royal flush along the way time and time again.
Only because of the requirements of real poker not favoring the
intermediate states toward a royal flush.
> No wings, no complex life system whatsoever, would've been
> established. The problem with evolution is their teaching of random
> creation of essential parts required to establish complex structures
> and functions allowing life to live and to thrive.
Evolution does not propose any kind of magical poofing creation. It
involves *modification* of pre-existing structures (be they organs or
molecules) that *alter* their function or *produce* an emergent
function or even, by combining structures in novel ways, producing
novel functions. *YOU* creationists are the ones proposing magical
poofing involving the actions of unseen agents working by unknown
mechanisms.
> Intelligent design
> of these complex functions and every essential part generated
> throughout history was and is the rule.
I have seen no evidence of "magical poofing" of any of the complex
functions of life. I have seen evidence of mutation producing altered
function, emergent function, or even novel combinatorial function.
Anyone can do that in a lab by selecting for the *modification* of pre-
existing structure to produce antibiotic resistance, for example.
> The fact of life.
Ken Shackleton
Let's look at the card analogy this way.
Let's say that a deck of cards is the genome of an asexual organism.
Let's start out with a population of 1 million decks [or organisms]
all genetically identical [same card sequence], and let's start with
some random sequence for our population. Remember, they all start out
the same.
Now, let's have an environment that give preference to decks that are
sequenced ace to king, in sequence of clubs/hearts/diamonds/spades.
The preference is slight, so even a random sequence can survive, just
not so easily as a sorted one.
Then a bunch die [half the population], no selection at first since
they all have the same sequence.
The rest make a copy of themselves, every copy has at least one
"mutation", two cards swap positions in the sequence.
Those copies that are now farther away from the sequence preferred by
the environment are more likely to die, those closer to the preferred
sequence are less likely to die. Half the population dies again, but
those now closer to the preferred sequence die in fewer numbers.
Repeat with another generation. More random mutations, some closer,
some farther away from the ideal for the environment. Half die
again.....see where this is heading?
The pattern will result in a population that evolves very quickly and
soon reaches the ideal for the environment, then stasis.......then the
environment changes, now a new ideal, and the population quickly
evolves to the ideal of the new environment.....then stasis once
again.
That is how it operates.
bpuharic
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>Bob "Exactly. Evolution is more like dealing out a hand of five
>cards,
>keeping any that are part of a royal flush, discarding the rest, and
>then redealing. Over and over and over again."
>
>Gerard: That suggests that the "royal flush" was pre-known. The
>requirements for complex aerodynamicly functioning wings were
>preknown. And since mutations are accidental, bogus shuffling would've
>discarded parts of that royal flush along the way time and time again.
>No wings, no complex life system whatsoever, would've been
>established. The problem with evolution is their teaching of random
>creation of essential parts required to establish complex structures
>and functions allowing life to live and to thrive.
i guess he doesn't understand evolution well enough to know it 'fails'
more than it succeeds.
what nonsense
Intelligent design
>of these complex functions and every essential part generated
>throughout history was and is the rule. The fact of life.
uh no. 'intelligent design' makes no sense without a process to
IMPLEMENT a design
i'm an engineer. i can sit at my desk all day long an invent wonderful
ideas. unless and until i use the laws of nature to IMPLEMENT my
design it will never happen
griping about evolution 'cuz you don't like it doesnt mean it's not
true. it just means you don't understand it.
Mike Lyle
statement above would still have little meaning in his native tongue.
--
Mike.
Steven L.
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ee7feed9-fb5c-46bd...@z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> Bob "Exactly. Evolution is more like dealing out a hand of five
> cards,
> keeping any that are part of a royal flush, discarding the rest, and
> then redealing. Over and over and over again."
>
> Gerard: That suggests that the "royal flush" was pre-known. The
> requirements for complex aerodynamicly functioning wings were
> preknown.
The only requirement that matters is *survival long enough to
reproduce*. There are two ways to accomplish this: Survive longer, or
reproduce quicker and faster.
Some species of dinosaurs had feathers, but they didn't fly. What was
the purpose of the feathers? Insulation? Sexual display? Balance?
Whatever it was, they got those feathers--and then birds evolved to use
those feathers for flight.
If Earth's atmospheric density were lower, that type of flight would no
longer work--not enough lift to overcome drag--and any proto-birds who
tried to jump off trees would have fallen to their death before they
could lay eggs. No birds.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"deser...@invalid-address.net" <deser...@invalid-address.net>
wrote in message news:825dp51kmo6novk9p...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 12:16:41 -0800 (PST), Richard Smol
> <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 4, 7:11�am, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The development
> > > of wings would require coordinated and errorlessly successive data
> > > inputs into the host's limb with foreknowledge of aerodynamic laws.
>
> > No.
>
> "Gerard's" false assert is so not right, it isn't even wrong. If
> his false assertion were true, wings would notv exist on Earth
> until humans came along to design them--- which is clearly not the
> case.
Well, of course "Gerard" thinks God designed them long ago--though he's
unclear as to whether the design was "built in" to the reptilian genome
or was added on later.
-- Steven L.
chris thompson
wrote:
What he wrote was grammatically perfect and utterly incoherent.
Chris
>
> --
> Mike.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com" <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com>
> wrote in messagenews:2a815941-819f-4870...@q15g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
> > If you can propose an honest way in which the involvement of a creator
> > can be tested using the tools of science, feel free to offer it. That
> > means proposing a potential observation or measurement which could
> > *not* be "explained" by the involvement of a creator.
>
> The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" suggested one possibility: The
> unambiguous evidence of a Creator may have been deliberately *hidden* by
> Him.
That doesn't address the issue.
The assertion is that a creator is involved in the evolutionary
process in some way. To test that assertion one would have to propose
a potential observation or measurement which could *not* be explained
by the involvement of a "creator" - a term so ill-defined in this
context as to cover anything from purely naturalistic meddling with
divine fiat.
If evidence - which is never unambiguous, no matter how much we may
wish it to be the case - is found which suggests that it has been
deliberately hidden, one would need to look at that evidence and
formulate hypotheses of its origin which can be tested.
>: Until a sufficiently enlightened civilization--one starting to ask
> deep questions about its origins--finally possessed the knowledge to
> uncover it.
Which is fine as a work of fiction. However, nothing in that fictional
scenario proposes a creator who uses (possibly) supernatural powers to
guide naturalistic processes.
>
> Where might such unambiguous evidence be hidden? Here are some
> proposals:
>
> 1. Deep in the digital or binary sequence expansion of some
> transcendental number: pi, e, etc.
Why would that be unambiguous evidence? Pi is a string of random
digits, and if we calculate pi to sufficient decimal places any
potential sequence of digits will be found there.
>
> 2. Orbiting at the Lagrangian points of Earth's orbit.
Again, why should this be unambiguous evidence for a "creator"? If we
find some object which looks artificial orbiting out there we will
investigate it using the tools of science to formulate hypotheses of
its origin.
>
> 3. Encoded in our DNA. Our DNA looks like it's totally the product of
> random mutations. But perhaps some cryptographer could discover a
> pattern in it that most scientists have missed--a pattern that reveals
> conscious intelligence.
Again, how can a pattern reveal "conscious intelligence"? How does one
distinguish a pattern made by "conscious intelligence" from one which
is generated by an unknown process? If we find what appears to be a
pattern in DNA code, we will investigate it by testing hypotheses of
its origin. "It is the work of a creator" is not testable, as it sets
no constraints on possible outcomes.
>
> 4. Buried on some other planet. Unlike the movie, I think the right
> place to look would be Pluto. Because the deep cold would preserve any
> artifacts indefinitely.
>
....and all we would find is an artifact whose origin we would
investigate using the tools of science.
RF
> If SETI received a message from some ultra-advanced civilization, and
> part of that message read "We created you humans, you know"--that would
> end ALL this speculation. Both science and religion would have to be
> drastically revised.
>
> -- Steven L.
Dogmantic Pyrrhonist (AKA Al)
> On Mar 5, 6:27 am, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> bpuharic <<and yet evolution
>
> 1. proposes a testable mechanism
> 2. successfully explains change>>
>
> You cannot test evolution.
Hangon? Says who?
> Yes, it explains change but doesn't explain
> the DETAIL needed to achieve the complex improvements. One would
> almost have to surrender to a conclusion that the enzymes inside cells
> are the designers.
Back in the 19th Century the mechanisms weren't known. True. The
explanatory power of the basic Theory still greatly assisted
biologists.
However, to say that we don't know how evolution explains the detail
of complex improvements is to ignore the last hundred or so years of
biology. But, we all know your biology ideas come from books older
than that by an order of magnitude. So no surprise there.
> I'm not going to credit complex proteins, which
> needed designers themselves. We have to give a nod somewhere. We have
> to attribute the intelligibility of life to an intelligent life
> outside of laws created to house and develop this life we are a part
> of.
This is called an assertion. It's an unsupported assertion at that.
Pandeism Fish
> "Ron O" <rokim...@cox.net> wrote in message
(which incorporates deism into pantheism, vis, the Creator became the
Creation, abiogenesis, evolution, and all)....
Pandeism Fish
How do you explain the evolution of dogs, then -- which has occurred
and been documented within human history? How do you explain for
example the evolution of the ridge on the Rhodesian Ridgeback, a newly
evolved feature unique to that breed of dog and not found in the DNA
of other canines?
johnetho...@yahoo.com
> fall on deaf ears.
>
> Ray
Dishonest or insane atheists can deny evolution as easily as dishonest
or insane theists. You are lying as usual.