Problems with Natural evolution.
Maggsy
> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> selection taking place.
So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
he can't exist. "Right got it."
If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
> suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> remains.
"Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
to threads" they can answer this as well.
Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
theory. The experts can't agree.The very sudden appearance of the
higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks. The still missing
transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
in fossils.The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
with any other groups of plants.How the avian lung could have evolved
gradually? The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling. Evolution
asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways. The Arctosa
spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
How does this benefit it's survival.As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
pre biotic soup.
To mention just a few.
Grandbank
Try googling "PRATT".
KP
Maggsy
>
> - Show quoted text -
LOL.
chris thompson
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.
Can you be more specific? What theories are there? Are you referring
to gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? If so, you should realize
that all but the fringes pretty much accept gradualism in some cases
and PE in others.
> The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
Wow. Sudden relative to what? The Cambrian was 60 million years long.
And even so, why shouldn't it be sudden. Think about it- for a billion
years there's no animals. Then- snap your fingers and in just another
5 million years you've got an animal! Blink your eyes and you probably
missed it.
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
Don't get to natural history museums much, I guess. Clue: there are
thousands of transitional forms. Here's just a few: Pakicetus,
Ambulocetus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik.
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
Why should we have found every fossil by now- especially ones from the
pre-Cambrian? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you
know.
> How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually?
http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
> The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
To whom? Not to people who study the issue.
> Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
Name them.
> The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
Who says it does?
> How does this benefit it's survival.As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
Again- what makes you think we should have found something almost 4
billion years old? Some people cannot find the set of keys they
misplaced last Tuesday.
>
> To mention just a few.
Indeed.
Chris
Prof Weird
>
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
And the creotards screaming 'GOD WOULD NOT USE EVOLUTION TO CREATE !!1!
1!!' is less arrogant why ?
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.
They agree that evolution happened - what they can't agree on is the
finer details (such as how fast did one particular lineage evolve, how
important is drift, etc).
How many theories of evolution do you 'think' there are ?
> The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
Ah, ye olde festering 'Cambrian Explosion' argument. Not everything
fossilizes well, so the histories of some groups will be more
incomplete than others. The 'explosion' was more the proliferation of
readily fossilizable parts - jellyfish and very small, soft-bodied
critters don't tend to leave many easily identified fossils.
Since when does 50-60 million years qualify as a 'sudden appearance' ?
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
Many transitional forms have been found - your unwillingness to look
for them (or your inability to accept them) are not threats to the
validity of the ToE.
What do you 'think' a transitional form should look like ? I suspect
its something like the silly-arsed 'crocoduck' or something even
sillier.
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
Angiosperms arose during the Cretaceous (about 140-180 million years
ago); WHERE did you get the idea that there should be fossils of them
in the Pre-Cambrian ?
> How the avian lung could have evolved gradually ?
Both reptiles and birds have septate lungs - essentially, a collection
of air sacs. So the avian lung is just a modified reptile lung.
> The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
Your incredulity is evidence of nothing except your incredulity.
What, precisely, is beyond your willfully limited understanding ?
> Evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian.
That is what the available evidence SHOWS.
> The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
And you 'determined' this is a problem for evolution how ?
Oh, right - your gibbering incredulity trumps everything.
> The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
> How does this benefit it's survival.
Why do antelope let lions eat them ?
Do you have something resembling a cite where Arctosa spiders are
CLAIMED to let wasps kill it ?
> As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
Perhaps because organic molecules don't last very long, and tend to be
EATEN by any critters around ?
> To mention just a few.
If what you've vomited up so far is your best, the ToE has nothing to
fear from you.
Boikat
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory.
Are there? What are they? Are they *scientific* theories or are
they simply disageements of lineage and deatails?
> The experts can't agree.
To be sure, there may be disagreements among scientists on specifics,
but in in reality, scientists (and "creation "scientists" do not
count, since they are not actually scientists) agree that Evolution
(the phenomena) is a fact..
> The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants
Spread over millions of years. Is that "sudden" to you?
> and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
"Relatively" being the operative word. The cambrian explosion lasted
from 5 to 50 million years. The reason for the ambiguity is that
sedementary rocks that old have had a greater chance over the past 500
years or so to be destroyed by errosion or plate techtonic activity.
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
Except for the ones that have been found. Of course, for every
transitional found, creationists still want more transitionals. Also,
if you had bothered to read Farwin's OotS, you'd also see that he
oddered a perfectly reasonable and logical explaination as to the
relative rareity of stansitionals.
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
Angiosperms did not originate in the Cambrian, but the late Jurassic
or early Cretacious.
> How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually?
How is that a problem?
> The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
To who?
> Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
Aside from the shell, how so?
> The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
Because the spider has little say in the matter.
> How does this benefit it's survival.
Who says it's a benefit? But obviously, there are enough spider to go
around that not all of them are victims of predaation, so their
survival is probably due to fucundity: Large numbers of offspring of
those not taken by wasps.
> As for Abiogenesis .
Abogenesis is not a concern for the ToE. It's a totally different
aspect of the study of life.How life evolved through time. For all
prcticle purposes, from the evolution standpoint, the"first life"
could have emerged through shemistry, been "seeded here from space
(though where *it* came from only moves the origine of life off
planet), or been created by some god-being. It's irrelevant to how
life diversified after it first appeared on Earth.
> The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
Sedimentary rocks that old are relatively rare, and those that do
exist suffer from a high degree of metamorphisis, so organices would
have been "cooked" out. Burt to continue past that point, the some of
the more recent rocks do how chemical signs of life.
> to mention a few.
Got any that actually are a problem for the ToE? But before you post
them, please look them up here:
Specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Nothing is more annoying that someone who posts PRATTA (Posts refuted
a thousand times already).
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
>> selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>> suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
>> scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
>> remains.
>
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory.
Not within science.
> The experts can't agree.
experts rarely agree on anything. However, can you provide a link to
any other scientific theory that explains the diversity of life?
>The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
"Higher" plants are not found in the Cambrian, and the first animal
fossils are found long before the Cambrian.
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
There are many transitional forms found in the fossil record. What do
you think are missing?
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
angiosperms first appear in the fossil record in the Mesozoic, about 250
million years after the Cambrian. Why should one expect to find
pre-Cambrian angiosperms?
> How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually?
By natural evolutionary processes. Why do you assume it could not
have? Evidence of avian style lungs have been found in early
theropods, so they were in place before birds evolved.
> The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
Baffling to whom?
> Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian.
All tetrapods evolved from amphibians. Why is that a problem?
> The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
Why do you think this is a problem? Can you outline the "fundamental
ways"?
> The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
> How does this benefit it's survival.
I doubt the spider "lets the wasp just kill it". Obviously killing
doesn't benefit survival.
> As for Abiogenesis .
Abiogenesis is not evolution.
> The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
So?
>
>
> To mention just a few.
All the the above are not a problem for evolution. Care to try again?
DJT
>
aganunitsi
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
...
With such a weak start I have no desire to read the rest of your
screed. How many theories of creationism are there? Sorry, but the
creationist experts simply can't agree...
John Harshman
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
>> selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
So what you're saying is that God isn't a scientific hypothesis because
we can't place any limits on what he would or would not do; therefore no
possible evidence could confirm or refute his intervention in nature.
That's correct, unless you want your god to conform to some expectation,
for example that he be benevolent, or that he cares about human beings,
particularly.
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>> suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
>> scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
>> remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
This seems to be a list you got off the web without really understanding
anything about it.
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.
True, about certain features of evolution, though there is much on which
we do all agree. The same is true of any science.
> The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
Neither of these is true. Depending on just what you mean by "higher
plants", they appeared gradually over many millions of years in
approximately the order one might expect from evolution. Animals are a
bit more abrupt (geologically speaking, but even they appeared over at
least 50 million years. And of course those are only the few
well-preserved phyla, not classes or orders, much less species.
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
That isn't a sentence, but it's still wrong. There are plenty of
transitional forms. Dinosaurs with feathers. Whales with feet. Mammals
(or are they reptiles?) with two jaw joints. Etc.
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
This is nonsense. There are no pre-Cambrian plants, period. The fossils
linking angiosperms with other plants are Mesozoic in age.
> How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually?
There is no problem with such a thing. You are confused.
> The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
Why?
> Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
So, since they're different, evolution is impossible? I don't see your
logic here.
> The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
> How does this benefit it's survival.
You will have to explain that one.
> As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
Actually, there are real fossils 3500 million years old, and claimed
chemical fossils 3800 million years old. What makes you think a
"prebiotic soup" would be preserved in rocks? Consider, for example, the
major phylum Rotifera, which has no fossil record at all, despite being
much more preservable than any "soup".
Perplexed in Peoria
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
>> selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
>> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>> suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
>> scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
>> remains.
>
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
Gee, I'd really like to rip someone's argument to threads today, but
unfortunately, all arguments got snipped before you crossposted
here. I agree with you about hubris, by the way, but I also agree
with the other folks here who point out the glaring hints of your own
hubris.
> Natural Evolution has problems.
Cool. New arguments to replace the ones that got snipped.
> For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.
Do you really intend to suggest that, by contrast, there is only a single
accepted theory of supernatural origins?
> The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance (relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
The "Cambrian explosion" has been discussed to death here. But this is
the first I have heard of "the very sudden appearance of the higher plants".
When is this supposed to have happened, both in evolutionary theory and
in the best accepted supernatural-origins theory? Have a citation?
> The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
I realize you are not an expert, but since you clearly know so little,
why do you speak so confidently? Lots of transitional fossils have
been found since Darwin. And evey time a fossil is found to fill a
gap, the creationists proclaim two new gaps.
> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.
But even a non-expert should at least have some idea what he is
talking about if he intends to challenge the orthodoxy. What you
just wrote is as ignorant as if someone were to complain about
the absense of ante-diluvean relicts connecting the Baptists with
other Christian groups.
Please us wiki or some other resource to learn about when
the Cambrian started and when angiosperms first appeared.
[snip remainder]
Ernest Major
<2a7b1ed7-443b-464a...@z33g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
>> The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
>> with any other groups of plants.
>
>Why should we have found every fossil by now- especially ones from the
>pre-Cambrian? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you
>know.
The earliest angiosperms appears in the Lower Cretaceous or perhaps the
Jurassic. Gymnosperms appear in the Late Carboniferous, and
progymnosperms in the Late Devonian. We would be looking for fossils
linking angiosperms with other seed plants somewhere in the Triassic or
Jurassic, or at the outside Carboniferous and Permian, not the
pre-Cambrian. [The "Cambrian Explosion" refers to an increase in the
size, diversity and disparity of animals in the fossil record - the
colonisation of the land by plants and animals was not contemporaneous,
and I doubt that there was a contemporaneous "explosion" of fungi and
algae.]
There are as far as I know no unambiguous proangiosperms (e.g.
Archaeofructus may be a florally reduced ally of the water lilies -
which are an early arising angiosperm lineage - rather than a stem
angiosperm), but there are candidates (e.g. Sanmiguelia, Schmeissneria,
Gigantopteridales).
--
alias Ernest Major
Michael Young
arguments, twice over. I'm starting to love this place.
Desertphile
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell god
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
Got any evidence your gods exist?
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Greg G.
> On Jun 3, 11:30 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> > theory.
...
> Except for the ones that have been found. Of course, for every
> transitional found, creationists still want more transitionals. Also,
> if you had bothered to read Farwin's OotS, you'd also see that he
> oddered a perfectly reasonable and logical explaination as to the
> relative rareity of stansitionals.
Ah, now I understand Maggsy's assertion. I had completely forgotten
about Farwin's Origin of Species.
bpuharic
<davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
>theory. The experts can't agree.
meaningless generalization.
i'm a physical chemist. quantum mechanics has been verified to 11
decimal places. yet there are disagreements about it
your statement is ridiculous. it's like saying we have all the answers
to all questions. that's nonsense
The very sudden appearance of the
>higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
>first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
over the course of 30 million years? how sudden is that?
The still missing
>transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
>in fossils.
and there are quite a number of transitionals we know about. even 1 is
evidence of evolution. AND we can SEE a transitional today: the
hawthorne fruitfly.
>
>To mention just a few.
quite frankly, your post makes no sense at all. it's completely wrong.
marks...@yahoo.com
> I was going to respond but everyone already beat me to all the
> arguments, twice over. I'm starting to love this place.
you can get by by simply posting some yup, uh-huh, not really and
NOO!!!! into the discussion.
Boikat
Affult acquiref fyslexia.
Another point of confusion is that ancient rocks were only
metamorphised, subducted or eroded dueing the last 500 years, not the
last 500 *million* years. ;)
Boikat
Dakota
It's been said many times but bears repeating. Whenever a transitional
fossil is found, it create gaps on either side. Filling one gap creates
two more.
Stuart
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
Hmmm. So if evolution is correct, God doesn't exist?
It is refreshing to see a fundamentalist so honest about what it is
that scares them.
Sorta like way back when Newtonian mechanics removed the need for
angels to move the planets in nice tidy orbits.
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > remains.
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking)
Relatively speaking indeed. On the other hand, a few tens of millions
of years isn't exactly sudden.
of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks. The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.
Ah, the fundamental canard of creationism (RIP SJG).
Here's a few i just n hominid evolution:
Australopithecus
Homo Habilus
Homo Erectus
Homo Heidlebergensis
The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually? The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling. Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways. The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
> How does this benefit it's survival.As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
>
> To mention just a few.
Would you mind posting the source of your misinformation? This way we
can correct
them and you.
Stuart
Otto
36f28268-fa35-4382...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
>> selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
I have to agree with you. How do we know that the "dying out " of species
isn't just the way a "purposeful creator" could or would get on with things
? Or should He, in someone's opinion, actually "zap" whole species wholesale
with lightning bolts because we feel that would be more effective ?
Otto
Darwin123
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants
Which "higher plants" are you talking about?
There are two "radiative explosions" of plants that I know about.
Neither is a large problem for evolution.
Radiative explosion #1) Flowering plants.
There are few flowering plants in the fossil record before the KT
boundary. Almost immediately after the dinosaurs died, flowering
plants fossils become variety and abundant. Darwin stated that the
sudden arrival of flowers was a problem.
Many flowering plants fossils from the Mesozoic era have been
found since Darwin's Day. Pollen fossils are very common. Microscopic
fossils of pollen have been found dating back to the Jurassic period.
Darwin probably didn't know about pollen fossils.
A complete fossil of what may be a "transitional" flowering plant
from the late Jurassic was recently found in China. However, this half-
flower (petals look like leaves) occurs about 40 million years after
the earliest pollen fossils. Magnolia and palm leaf fossils occur in
the late Cretaceous period.
A lot of fossil leaves have been found in Wyoming dating from the
late Cretaceous. These are very important as they seem to indicate the
reasons why "transitional" flowering plants are so rare in the fossil
record. This deposit was laid on the sides of an ancient river that
was periodically buried in volcanic ash. So the banks of this ancient
river are recorded. There is a great variety of flowering plants only
on the inner banks of the river, where erosion is greatest. The inner
banks usually don't leave fossils because the erosion is so large. The
outer banks of the river, and areas far from the banks, don't have
flowering plants.
Evolution of flowering plants has been occurring for at least
80 MY on the inner banks of the rivers. The KT disaster, by killing
off plants and animals in other areas, released the flowering plants
to grow in other areas. More and more fossils are being done every
day.
Radiative explosion #2) Land plants.
Marine plants don't fossilize well, and never did. Most algae do
not have hard parts. There are a few coccoliths (i.e., microscopic
calcium carbonate fossils) from algae going back to the Cambrian, but
almost no marine plants. The "higher" marine algae don't fossilize
either. This is because marine plants don't have hard parts because
they don't need support against gravity.
Three hard parts all land plants now have are cuticles (wax),
cellulose (a carbohydrate), and pollisporin (chemists are baffled).
Cuticles are needed to keep water in the leaves, and cellulose is
needed to lift the plant into the air for sunlight. Cuticle wax,
cellulose and pollisporin are the only plant materials that fossilize.
They are only found in land plants.
Cuticle wax fossils are found in rock from the Silurian. There
are no cellulose fossils or pollen preserved in the Silurian. The
conclusion of scientists is that the wax developed first, to keep
water in. Again, this is something Darwin didn't know. Starting in the
Devonian, there are fossils of branchial plants. Plants, with fossils
and leaves, are found in the Devonian period. Land plants really
differentiate and become abundant in the Carboniferous period. None of
these plants are flowering plants. However, pollen becomes an abundant
fossil in the late Jurassic.
Obviously, there is a transition that isn't as rapid as you
thought. I would like to hear you explain why cuticles appear before
cellulose. If "higher" plants were created suddenly in one step, I
would expect cuticles and cellulose to occur together.
Darwin123
> > first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
>
> Ah, ye olde festering 'Cambrian Explosion' argument. �Not everything
> fossilizes well, so the histories of some groups will be more
> incomplete than others. �The 'explosion' was more the proliferation of
> readily fossilizable parts - jellyfish and very small, soft-bodied
> critters don't tend to leave many easily identified fossils.
>
> Since when does 50-60 million years qualify as a 'sudden appearance' ?
>
> > The still missing
> > transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> > in fossils.
>
> Many transitional forms have been found - your unwillingness to look
> for them (or your inability to accept them) are not threats to the
> validity of the ToE.
>
> What do you 'think' a transitional form should look like ? �I suspect
> its something like the silly-arsed 'crocoduck' or something even
> sillier.
>
> > The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> > with any other groups ofplants.
>
> Angiosperms arose during the Cretaceous (about 140-180 million years
> ago); WHERE did you get the idea that there should be fossils of them
> in the Pre-Cambrian ?
>
angiosperms (Jurassic) or the rise of land plants (Silurian). We
really don't a fossil record of "higher plants" until the plants start
to invade land.
I think he means the radiation of angiosperms at the KT boundary.
Darwin though there was a problem because all the big angiosperms seem
to appear at the beginning of the Cenozoic. However, paleotologists
have found many fossil angiosperms since the time of Darwin. Pollen
appears in the fossil record in the Jurassic. The angiosperms of this
time don't seem to have left any fossils, for reasons that I discuss
in another post.
On the other hand, he may be talking about the sudden appearance
of land plants. Marine plants don't have hard parts. So their
appearance of land animals in the Carboniferous period seemed to be
just as sudden as the appearance of animals at the beginning of the
Cambrian.
Fossils have been found of land plants from times earlier than
the Carboniferous. For example, cuticle wax has been found in the
Silurian. Cuticle wax in land plants is important for conserving
water. However, there is no cuticle wax in marine plants. Further,
vascular plant fossils are found from the late Devonian. Vascular
plants have cellulose. Plants with cellulose can lift their leaves
above other plants, thus capturing sunlight. Marine plants (e.g.,
kelp) have not cellulose. Marine don't need hard parts.
The "sudden" appearance of vascular plants used to be thought of
as a problem with evolution. However, we have plenty of fossils of
land plants that come from times earlier than the Carbiniferous
period. These fossils aren't as complete as we want since the plants
hadn't evolved all their hard parts.
I consider a plant with a cuticle and no cellulose a
"transitional" plant, since there are no plants today like that. Some
"transitionals" don't fossilize in their entirety because the organism
involved hasn't evolved all their hard parts yet. Land plants are like
that. Sometimes, the Devonian radiation is called the "Big Bang" of
plant evolution.
The first tress formed at the end of the Devonian. Conifers,
cycads, lycopods, and fern trees show up in the Carboniferous. These
could be the "higher plants" the OP was talking about. No angiosperms.
Note that angiosperms don't arise until more than a hundred
million years after the first land plants. The first angiosperms
appear only inf fossil form. This is probably because the earliest
angiosperms specialized in environments with high erosion. It isn't
until the KT that we find large angiosperms (fruit trees and the
like).
I know molecular biologists and naturalists will argue that we
have more than enough evidence for plant evolution just in the
comparison of extant plants. Still, it is nice to know that
traditional paleontology has kept up.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Maggsy" <davidma...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:36f28268-fa35-4382...@v37g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
> Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>> not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
>> selection taking place.
>
> So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> he can't exist. "Right got it."
As opposed to claiming god does exist - -because the burnt image on thie
piece of toast looks lie someone we've never met?
>
> If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>> suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
>> scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
>> remains.
>
>
> "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
>
> Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> theory. The experts can't agree.The very sudden appearance of the
> higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks. The still missing
> transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> in fossils.The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> with any other groups of plants.How the avian lung could have evolved
> gradually? The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling. Evolution
> asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways. The Arctosa
> spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
> How does this benefit it's survival.As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> pre biotic soup.
All, generzlly, you are showing is:
Your own ignorance, and
the fact that even though evolution HAPPENS - there are still millions of
things that aren't explained by science - YET.
Take a walk from L.A. to New York.
When you get there, give a totally detained, scientific explanation, of
everything you've seen and heard.
You would have a hard time doing that even if I just said "one of your
normal days".
It owuld be IMPOSSIBLE for you to take that walk, and report as described.
Yet you condemn science for not knowing the exact details of billions of
years of evolution.
You ask questions - questions are NOT "disproof of evolution". Not having
the exact answer for those questions, does NOT dispute evolution.
The archaeological, scientific, evidence shows no sign of geezus - even
though he is supposed to have lived (and performed mind bending tricks) ONLY
2,000 years ago.
Maggsy
> On Jun 3, 12:30 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > > selection taking place.
>
> > So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> > how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> > he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> > If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > > remains.
>
> > "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> > talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> > relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> > to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> > Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> > theory. The experts can't agree.
>
> Can you be more specific? What theories are there?
Well there is Natural , theistic and Neo-Darwinism evolution for
starters.
Are you referring
> to gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? If so, you should realize
> that all but the fringes pretty much accept gradualism in some cases
> and PE in others.
So you say. What is your evidence for this?
>
> > The very sudden appearance of the
> > higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> > first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
>
> Wow. Sudden relative to what?
Relative to 13.75 billion years. The current estimated age of the
universe.
The Cambrian was 60 million years long.
> And even so, why shouldn't it be sudden. Think about it- for a billion
> years there's no animals. Then- snap your fingers and in just another
> 5 million years you've got an animal! Blink your eyes and you probably
> missed it.
Yes and this evidence suggests that evolution is not gradual.
>
> > The still missing
> > transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> > in fossils.
>
> Don't get to natural history museums much, I guess. Clue: there are
> thousands of transitional forms. Here's just a few: Pakicetus,
> Ambulocetus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik.
I didn't say there wasn't any, but you should know there are not as
many as what Darwin expected. This is a problem for his theory.
>
> > The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> > with any other groups of plants.
>
> Why should we have found every fossil by now-
I never said every fossil. That would be silly. There should have been
more found though. This is what Darwin expected.
especially ones from the
> pre-Cambrian? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you
> know.
This is true. Just remember that the next time an atheists say's that
there is no evidence for God. Even if that was true which it isn't it
still wouldn't prove anything as you have just said. You need to be
consistent.
>
> > How the avian lung could have evolved
> > gradually?
>
> http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
This explains nothing. You have not understood what I was saying. This
will explain it better.
The second problem he sees is that there is ‘a huge number of highly
complex systems in nature which cannot be plausibly accounted for in
terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations’.
Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological
literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come
about’. A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is
‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung [see
box]. I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of
biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology
of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a
series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we
can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said,
if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually
in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.
‘The fact is that, in common-sense terms, if you have no axe to grind,
there are a vast number of such cases in nature.’ Michael Denton, a
recognised academic in his field, says that the claim that Darwinian
gradualism ‘can generate the sorts of complex systems we see
throughout the biosphere is not only unsubstantiated, but in many
cases it is actually beyond the realm of common sense that such things
would ever happen’
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/design.asp
>
> > The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
>
> To whom?
To Michael Denton for one who is a biochemist.
Not to people who study the issue.
So you say. Prove it?
>
> > Evolution
> > asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> > amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
>
> Name them.
Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at an
impasse. Darwinism claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians.
However, no discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made. On
the contrary, comparisons between amphibians and reptiles reveal that
there are huge physiological gaps between the two, and a "half reptile-
half amphibian" would have no chance of survival.
One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups is the
different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in
water, and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable
membrane. Such eggs possess an ideal structure for development in
water. Reptiles, on the other hand, lay their eggs on land, and
consequently their eggs are designed to survive there. The hard shell
of the reptile egg, also known as an "amniotic egg," allows air in,
but is impermeable to water. In this way, the water needed by the
developing animal is kept inside the egg.
If amphibian eggs were laid on land, they would immediately dry out,
killing the embryo. This cannot be explained in terms of evolution,
which asserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians. That is
because, for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have
changed into an amniotic one within the lifespan of a single
generation. How such a process could have occurred by means of natural
selection and mutation-the mechanisms of evolution-is inexplicable.
Biologist Michael Denton explains the details of the evolutionist
impasse on this matter:
Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from
amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of
the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a
successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the
reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an
amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which
differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the
amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate
divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never
been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and
aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to
the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous
problems.92
Nor does the fossil record provide any evidence to confirm the
evolutionist hypothesis regarding the origin of reptiles.
Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary paleontologist and authority on
vertebrate paleontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in
his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The
early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians
that their specific ancestry has not been established."93 In his newer
book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in
1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and)
the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along
with the origins of many other major groups.94
The same fact is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_10.html
>
> > The Arctosa
> > spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
>
> Who says it does?
Alexander Petrunkevitch
http://www.oralhistorykorea.org/eng_comp/archive/science/Petrunkevitch-Spider&Wasp.pdf
>
> > How does this benefit it's survival.As for Abiogenesis .The sediments
> > dated to 3500-3900 millions years old show no signs of the so called
> > pre biotic soup.
>
> Again- what makes you think we should have found something almost 4
> billion years old? Some people cannot find the set of keys they
> misplaced last Tuesday.
Your theory of evolution is based on missing facts and evidence.The
Natural theory of evolution does not fit the facts.
>
>
>
> > To mention just a few.
>
> Indeed.
>
> Chris- Hide quoted text -
Boikat
> On Jun 3, 5:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:30 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > > > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > > > selection taking place.
>
> > > So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> > > how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> > > he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> > > If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > > > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > > > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > > > remains.
>
> > > "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> > > talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> > > relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> > > to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> > > Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> > > theory. The experts can't agree.
>
> > Can you be more specific? What theories are there?
>
> Well there is Natural , theistic and Neo-Darwinism evolution for
> starters.
>
"Theistic evolution" is not a scientific theory (Any "theori" that
includes untestable elements, or elements that are just tossed in
without supporting observation, is not cience), and "neo-darwinism" is
classic Darwinism but includes genetics, and is "Natural".
If you don't understand that aspect of basic sience or the ToE, then
there is no real point in continuing. Learn the basics of science
before you presume to judge it.
<snip>
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Jun 3, 5:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 12:30 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Look the evidence is that millions of species have died out. That's
>
> > > > not evidence of a purposeful creator, that's evidence of a natural
> > > > selection taking place.
>
> > > So you say. Your hubris knows no bounds. You think you can tell God
> > > how he should do things and if he doesn't do it the way you think then
> > > he can't exist. "Right got it."
>
> > > If you want to continue to ignore this, I'd
>
> > > > suggest to crosspost this topic to the talk.origins newsgroup. The
> > > > scientists there will rip your argument to shreds and burn the
> > > > remains.
>
> > > "Oh no now you really frightened me" Ok I will cross post this to the
> > > talk.origins newsgroups ( now we are talking about evolution it's
> > > relevant to that newsgroup) and while they are "ripping my arguments
> > > to threads" they can answer this as well.
>
> > > Natural Evolution has problems.For a start there is more than one
> > > theory. The experts can't agree.
>
> > Can you be more specific? What theories are there?
>
> Well there is Natural ,
*ALL* theories in *ALL* branches of science are "Natural". Science is
based on the assumption of naturalism.
> theistic
*NO* theory in *ANY* branch of science is "theistic". A scientist may
believe in God, but that is not a scientific position.
>and Neo-Darwinism evolution for
> starters.
So we have "neo-Darwinism" only. Most evolutionary biologists would
refer to it as the modern synthesis, or just "evolutionary theory".
>
> Are you referring
>
> > to gradualism and punctuated equilibrium? If so, you should realize
> > that all but the fringes pretty much accept gradualism in some cases
> > and PE in others.
>
> So you say. What is your evidence for this?
Try educating yourself in the subject of evolutionary biology.
>
>
>
> > > The very sudden appearance of the
> > > higher plants and the sudden appearance(relatively speaking) of the
> > > first animal groups in the Cambrian rocks.
>
> > Wow. Sudden relative to what?
>
> Relative to 13.75 billion years. The current estimated age of the
> universe.
What an utterly stupid answer!
The Cambrian "explosion" was *not* sudden in relation to what we know
of biology.
>
> The Cambrian was 60 million years long.
>
> > And even so, why shouldn't it be sudden. Think about it- for a billion
> > years there's no animals. Then- snap your fingers and in just another
> > 5 million years you've got an animal! Blink your eyes and you probably
> > missed it.
>
> Yes and this evidence suggests that evolution is not gradual.
Another utterly stupid answer. In what way is 5 million year "sudden"?
>
>
>
> > > The still missing
> > > transitional forms that Darwin expected to be found with the increase
> > > in fossils.
>
> > Don't get to natural history museums much, I guess. Clue: there are
> > thousands of transitional forms. Here's just a few: Pakicetus,
> > Ambulocetus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik.
>
> I didn't say there wasn't any,
You most certainly implied it.
> but you should know there are not as
> many as what Darwin expected.
There aren't? How many did Darwin expect, and where did he communicate
these expectations?
>This is a problem for his theory.
Not according to the people who actually know anything about it.
In any case, Darwin's theory is only one element of evolutionary
theory. There are considerable problems with natural selection alone
as an agent of evolutionary change, but we have learned a lot more
about the processes of evolution in 150 years.
>
>
>
> > > The absence of pre -Cambrian fossils linking angiosperms
> > > with any other groups of plants.
>
> > Why should we have found every fossil by now-
>
> I never said every fossil.
No, but you made a statement which shows that you are grossly ignorant
of the fossil record.
>That would be silly. There should have been
> more found though.
Why?
> This is what Darwin expected.
Where did Darwin say that?
>
> especially ones from the
>
> > pre-Cambrian? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you
> > know.
>
> This is true. Just remember that the next time an atheists say's that
> there is no evidence for God.
What on earth has that to do with evolutionary theory?
The reason why belief in God is not part of science is that the
existence or non-existence of God is not a proposition which can be
tested using the tools of science.
> Even if that was true which it isn't it
> still wouldn't prove anything as you have just said. You need to be
> consistent.
>
>
>
> > > How the avian lung could have evolved
> > > gradually?
>
> >http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
>
> This explains nothing.
Emm..it explains how the respiratory system of birds could evolve from
that of more basal dinosaurs.
Which part of the argument do you not understand?
> You have not understood what I was saying. This
> will explain it better.
>
> The second problem he sees is that there is ‘a huge number of highly
> complex systems in nature which cannot be plausibly accounted for in
> terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations’.
This is what is called an unfounded assertion.
Which systems are those? The reference to bird respirations provides a
plausible evolutionary pathway whereby such a system could evolve.
>
> Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological
> literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come
> about’. A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is
> ‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung [see
> box].
So how is the explanation provided by evolutionary biologists flawed?
> I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of
> biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology
> of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a
> series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we
> can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said,
> if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually
> in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.
So far nobody has been able to show any organ or system which could
*not* have evolved in this way.
>
> ‘The fact is that, in common-sense terms, if you have no axe to grind,
> there are a vast number of such cases in nature.
There are? How come the ID theorists have been unable to describe any
such system?
> ’ Michael Denton, a
> recognised academic in his field,
...of biochemistry, not evolutionary biology.
>says that the claim that Darwinian
> gradualism ‘can generate the sorts of complex systems we see
> throughout the biosphere is not only unsubstantiated, but in many
> cases it is actually beyond the realm of common sense that such things
> would ever happen’
And this is another example of what we call an "unsubstantiated
assertion".
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/design.asp
>
>
>
> > > The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
>
> > To whom?
>
> To Michael Denton for one who is a biochemist.
Not an evolutionary biologist then.
Why should we accept the unsubstantiated assertions of a biochemist
over the published findings of evolutionary biologists when it comes
to evolutionary biology?
>
> Not to people who study the issue.
>
> So you say. Prove it?
>
It's not the business of anyone other than you to educate yourself.
>
>
> > > Evolution
> > > asserts that reptiles evolved from Amphibian. The amphibian egg and
> > > amniotic egg are different in many fundamental ways.
>
> > Name them.
>
> Regarding the origin of these creatures, evolution is again at an
> impasse.
Not according to the people who have actually *studied* the subject.
> Darwinism
Do you mean evolutionary biology? What is "Darwinism"?
> claims that reptiles evolved from amphibians.
Not exactly, because in strict cladistic terms "reptiles" are a
paraphyletic grouping. However, we have a reasonable fossil record of
taxa basal to the clades we label "reptile".
> However, no discovery to verify such a claim has ever been made.
What about Westlothiana?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlothiana
> On
> the contrary, comparisons between amphibians and reptiles reveal that
> there are huge physiological gaps between the two,
There are? Not according to the people who actually *study* the
subject.
What do you know that they don't?
>and a "half reptile-
> half amphibian" would have no chance of survival.
What on earth does that mean? This is another utterly stupid assertion
demonstrating only your deep ignorance of evolutionary biology.
Why not educate yourself?
>
> One example of the physiological gaps between these two groups is the
> different structures of their eggs. Amphibians lay their eggs in
> water, and their eggs are jelly-like, with a transparent and permeable
> membrane.
Actually, even in modern taxa amphibian eggs are much more varied than
that.
> Such eggs possess an ideal structure for development in
> water. Reptiles, on the other hand, lay their eggs on land, and
> consequently their eggs are designed to survive there.
...by providing an environment which mimics that of amphibian eggs.
>The hard shell
> of the reptile egg, also known as an "amniotic egg," allows air in,
> but is impermeable to water. In this way, the water needed by the
> developing animal is kept inside the egg.
Quite so.
Why could such an egg not evolve in gradual stages?
>
> If amphibian eggs were laid on land, they would immediately dry out,
> killing the embryo.
Some amphibians *do* lay eggs on land.
>This cannot be explained in terms of evolution,
According to who?
> which asserts that reptiles evolved gradually from amphibians. That is
> because, for life to have begun on land, the amphibian egg must have
> changed into an amniotic one within the lifespan of a single
> generation.
According to who?
> How such a process could have occurred by means of natural
> selection and mutation-the mechanisms of evolution-is inexplicable.
Not according to evolutionary biologists it ain't.
> Biologist
No, biochemist.
> Michael Denton explains the details of the evolutionist
> impasse on this matter:
Michael Denton is relying on the ignorance of his target audience to
perpetuate outright falsehoods.
>
> Every textbook of evolution asserts that reptiles evolved from
> amphibia but none explains how the major distinguishing adaptation of
> the reptiles, the amniotic egg, came about gradually as a result of a
> successive accumulation of small changes. The amniotic egg of the
> reptile is vastly more complex and utterly different to that of an
> amphibian. There are hardly two eggs in the whole animal kingdom which
> differ more fundamentally… The origin of the amniotic egg and the
> amphibian - reptile transition is just another of the major vertebrate
> divisions for which clearly worked out evolutionary schemes have never
> been provided. Trying to work out, for example, how the heart and
> aortic arches of an amphibian could have been gradually converted to
> the reptilian and mammalian condition raises absolutely horrendous
> problems.92
>
> Nor does the fossil record provide any evidence to confirm the
> evolutionist hypothesis regarding the origin of reptiles.
>
> Robert L. Carroll, an evolutionary paleontologist and authority on
> vertebrate paleontology, is obliged to accept this. He has written in
> his classic work, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution, that "The
> early amniotes are sufficiently distinct from all Paleozoic amphibians
> that their specific ancestry has not been established."93 In his newer
> book, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, published in
> 1997, he admits that "The origin of the modern amphibian orders, (and)
> the transition between early tetrapods" are "still poorly known" along
> with the origins of many other major groups.94
...which doesn't support the assertion.
>
> The same fact is also acknowledged by Stephen Jay Gould:
What "fact", and were does Gould "acknowledge" it?
>
> http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_10.html
>
RF
>
>
> > > The Arctosa
> > > spider is another mystery.Why the spider lets the wasp just kill it.
>
> > Who says it does?
>
> Alexander Petrunkevitch
>
> http://www.oralhistorykorea.org/eng_comp/archive/science/Petrunkevitc...
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> This explains nothing. You have not understood what I was saying. This
> will explain it better.
I hope so.
> The second problem he sees is that there is ‘a huge number of highly
> complex systems in nature which cannot be plausibly accounted for in
> terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations’.
Someday a creationist will come up with an argument that wasn't
refuted by 1910. Today isn't going to be that day.
> Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological
> literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come
> about’.
1. Go to scholar.google.com
2. Type in <evolution avian lung>
3. Would you like me to send you a copy of "Form and Function of
Lungs: The Evolution of Air Breathing Mechanisms" or do you have
access to American Zoologist 1988 28(2):739-759?
> A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is
> ‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung [see
> box].
That was your best example? Oh well....
> I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of
> biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology
> of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a
> series of small events is almost inconceivable.
You're absolutely right. It requires almost a complete absence of
profound knowledge of biology to come to such an obviously incorrect
conclusion.
Had you combined your ignorance with one google search and reading one
peer-reviewed article, you might have seen the following:
"Symmorphosis is exhibited in the avian breathing apparatus, which is
endowed with a key evolutionary innovation by having the highly
specialized lung continuously ventilated by multiple air sacs that
function as bellows. Functional morphologists directly deal with these
kinds of functional and structural complexities that provide an
enormous potential upon simple changes in underlying mechanisms."
I'll also point out that you're correct that it is inconceivable that
the avian lung is the result of drastic modification. I'd go so far
as to say that any hypothesis that relies on drastic modification is
probably wrong. How fortunate that we have evolution instead.
> This is something we
> can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said,
> if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually
> in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.
Were you going to get around to showing this, or will you be content
is delimiting your ignorance of the peer-reviewed literature?
> ‘The fact is that, in common-sense terms, if you have no axe to grind,
> there are a vast number of such cases in nature.’
I agree that there are a vast number of cases in nature where you are
wholly ignorant of the peer-reviewed literature. So?
Michael Denton, a
> recognised academic in his field, says that the claim that Darwinian
> gradualism ‘can generate the sorts of complex systems we see
> throughout the biosphere is not only unsubstantiated, but in many
> cases it is actually beyond the realm of common sense that such things
> would ever happen’
/This/ Michael Denton?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i4/design.asp
>
>
>
> > > The evolution of the amniotic egg is baffling.
>
> > To whom?
>
> To Michael Denton for one who is a biochemist.
>
> Not to people who study the issue.
>
> So you say. Prove it?
1. Go to scholar.google.com
2. search for <"amniotic egg" evolution>
3. Read chapter 8, "Evolution of the Amniote Egg" in _Amniote
origins: completing the transition to land_, by Stuart Shigeo Sumida
and Karen L. M. Martin (1997).
<snip>
Spotted Owl
Maybe we should keep score on that 'There are no real anti-
evolutionists' idea.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
doesn't prove that the mutations were random. All mathematicians who
have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient. So the
evidence points toward a more complex decisionprocess by which
organisms come to be.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
> doesn't prove that the mutations were random.
No, what tells us that mutations are random in respect of fitness are
the numerous studies which show that mutations are random in respect
of fitness.
>All mathematicians who
> have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
Flat falsehood. Here's one such paper: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/3/3
> So the
> evidence points toward a more complex decisionprocess by which
> organisms come to be.
And what is that "decisionprocess" and how do you propose to test it
using the tools of science?
RF
Garamond Lethe
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
> doesn't prove that the mutations were random.
Correct, the references I provided do not prove mutations were
random. Would you like a citation or six to that literature?
> All mathematicians who
> have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
Correct. Natural selection is required as well (and I say this having
done the math myself).
> So the
> evidence points toward a more complex decisionprocess by which
> organisms come to be.
You were doing so well....
Richard Harter
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 8, 12:38 am, Maggsy <davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 5:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> but you should know there are not as
>> many as what Darwin expected.
>
>There aren't? How many did Darwin expect, and where did he communicate
>these expectations?
As a note, Maggsy is probably referring to Darwin's explanation
for the apparent absence of pre-Cambrian intermediates in the
fossil record as it was known in his day. Darwin suggested that
this was because there was a major gap in the fossil record. It
was a quite reasonable suggestion, given what was known 150 years
ago. As it happens, Darwin's explanation was wrong.
If Darwin were a prophet preaching inspired truth that would be a
major strike against his prophecy. He was not. He was a
scientist. Scientists do the best they can, given what tools
they have and what is known at the time.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
Reality is real; words are real too.
However words are not reality.
hersheyh
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
> doesn't prove that the mutations were random. All mathematicians who
> have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
The rate of random mutation and random, selectively neutral fixation
*alone* is sufficient (actually more than sufficient) to explain the
observed amount of difference in the DNA of humans and chimps given
their time of divergence from a common ancestor. Natural selection
for change (which changes genomes much more rapidly than random
mutation and random fixation) represents only a very small fraction of
the observed differences between these species. Most natural
selection is conservative, which is why the observed rate of change in
these genomes is *less* (but only slightly) than the rate expected for
random mutation and random non-selective fixation.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
of "beneficial" mutations, or so to say mutations which mitigate or
the deleterious effect of other mutations. And your authority for
referencing papers is now nothing.
On 8 jun, 14:37, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > > <snip>- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
hersheyh
> doesn't prove that the mutations were random.
Actual experiments show that mutations occur randomly wrt need for the
mutation. Starting with Luria and Delbruck in the 1940s.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You referenced a paper which basically talked about unexpected numbers
> of "beneficial" mutations, or so to say mutations which mitigate or
> the deleterious effect of other mutations. And your authority for
> referencing papers is now nothing.
>
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
> doesn't prove that the mutations were random.
The mutations were, the selection was not (Natural selection)
> All mathematicians who
> have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
What mathematicians and when? What formula? What values for the
variables?
> So the
> evidence points toward a more complex decisionprocess
In order for there to be a "decision process" there has to be a
"processor". Care to name the identity of that processor, and is it
possible to set up an interview?
> by which
> organisms come to be.
Only to the incredulous.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You referenced a paper which basically talked about unexpected numbers
> of "beneficial" mutations, or so to say mutations which mitigate or
> the deleterious effect of other mutations. And your authority for
> referencing papers is now nothing.
The existence of this and many other such papers shows that your
assertion that, and I quote "All mathematicians who have calculated
it, say random mutation is not sufficient" is flatly false.
This has nothing to do with authority. It's a simple statement of fact
that you are wrong.
RF
Michael Young
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> The existence of this and many other such papers shows that your
> assertion that, and I quote "All mathematicians who have calculated
> it, say random mutation is not sufficient" is flatly false.
>
> This has nothing to do with authority. It's a simple statement of fact
> that you are wrong.
>
> RF
Yup.
bpuharic
>You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
>doesn't prove that the mutations were random. All mathematicians who
>have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
really? care to cite a reference?
or are you lying?
Michael Young
> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 05:22:24 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
>
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You provide irrellevant references. That one came after another,
> >doesn't prove that the mutations were random. All mathematicians who
> >have calculated it, say random mutation is not sufficient.
>
> really? care to cite a reference?
>
> or are you lying?
Hundred bucks on not having so much as a reputable sentence to cite.
Anyone want to take me up on that?
Friar Broccoli
> On Jun 3, 5:58 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 12:30 pm,Maggsy<davidmaggs2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snipping]
> > > How the avian lung could have evolved
> > > gradually?
>
> >http://www.evolutionpages.com/bird_lung.htm
>
> This explains nothing. You have not understood what I was saying. This
> will explain it better.
>
> The second problem he sees is that there is ‘a huge number of highly
> complex systems in nature which cannot be plausibly accounted for in
> terms of a gradual build-up of small random mutations’.
>
> Indeed, he says, ‘in many cases there does not exist in the biological
> literature even an attempt to explain how these things have come
> about’. A classic example, he says, is the lung of the bird, which is
> ‘unique in being a circulatory lung rather than a bellows lung [see
> box]. I think it doesn’t require a great deal of profound knowledge of
> biology to see that for an organ which is so central to the physiology
> of any higher organism, its drastic modification in that way by a
> series of small events is almost inconceivable. This is something we
> can’t throw under the carpet again because, basically, as Darwin said,
> if any organ can be shown to be incapable of being achieved gradually
> in little steps, his theory would be totally overthrown.
I must admit that I don't have any good ideas on how the Avian lung
evolved, although I would certainly like to. However you might be
interested to know that it has recently been discovered that
crocodiles and alligators have single direction lungs like those of
birds. Since it has long been known that Crocs are the closest living
relatives of birds, this supports the tree of evolution. Some
references:
http://www.unews.utah.edu/p/?r=010510-1
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2010-01-16_03.mp3
nando_r...@yahoo.com
basically go against the expectations of what we would find if natural
selection with random mutations were true, and then the paper goes on
to suggest 4 explanations how natural selection with random mutations
could still be true, without providing any evidence that these
explanations are true. So the thing here is that the facts reported by
this paper indicate natural selection theory is not true to fact.
On 8 jun, 18:22, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You understand nothing.
I suggest that as a scientist who has a track record of research and
publication in the field of evolutionary biology I understand the
subject rather better than you do.
> The findings in the paper you referenced
> basically go against the expectations of what we would find if natural
> selection with random mutations were true, and then the paper goes on
> to suggest 4 explanations how natural selection with random mutations
> could still be true, without providing any evidence that these
> explanations are true.
Excuse me? The explanations are *based* on the evidence!
> So the thing here is that the facts reported by
> this paper indicate natural selection theory is not true to fact.
Well, not according to the authors of that and many other papers on
the subject.
What do you know that they don't?
RF
nando_r...@yahoo.com
out to be a liar, and somebody who destroys knowledge about freedom,
in my eye. The 4 explanations were just suppositions, they are not
proven. You could easily add in a 5h supposition that the mitigating
mutations were realized through a decisionprocess which takes into
account the overall functioning of the organism. The first supposition
the researchers made is that the finding is false, that mitigating
mutations are actually less likely than they are found to be, by
omitting organisms that didn't reproduce from the count. So they are
really just brainstorming, they certainly never suggest to take these
suppositions as proven fact.
On 9 jun, 15:11, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Obviously being a professional evolutionary biologist just makes you
> out to be a liar,
What an offensive little shit you are!
> and somebody who destroys knowledge about freedom,
> in my eye.
Well bully for you.
> The 4 explanations were just suppositions, they are not
> proven.
Neither is anything else in science.
> You could easily add in a 5h supposition that the mitigating
> mutations were realized through a decisionprocess which takes into
> account the overall functioning of the organism.
Fine. Write up the paper and submit it to an academic journal.
>The first supposition
> the researchers made is that the finding is false,
What a load of unmitigated bollocks!
> that mitigating
> mutations are actually less likely than they are found to be, by
> omitting organisms that didn't reproduce from the count.
So now you are accusing people you don't know of being liars. What an
offensive little shit you are.
> So they are
> really just brainstorming, they certainly never suggest to take these
> suppositions as proven fact.
Oh, for crying out loud. Learn something of the fundamentals of
science rather than throwing accusations of dishonesty around because
science doesn't support your pathetic and ill-formed ideas.
Pathetic little man.
RF
nando_r...@yahoo.com
numbers of basically beneficial, mitigating mutations, as supporting
evidence for the theory of natural selection with random mutations,
doesn't understand anything.
On 9 jun, 15:57, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
Kermit
You might want to specify that the sentence actually supports what he
claims (to the degree that he claims anything meaningful). He has a
habit of referencing papers that establish exactly the opposite of
what he asserts.
Kermit
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's whatever. Anybody referencing a paper talking about unexpected
> numbers of basically beneficial, mitigating mutations, as supporting
> evidence for the theory of natural selection with random mutations,
> doesn't understand anything.
>
That applies more to you than anyone elsr that posts on T.O. Take for
example your posts referencing Dubois and "anticiaption". You are
totally clueless, and use that to try to support your insane world
view of inanimate objects being capabe of thought and decision making.
Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
anticipation being embedded in the physical system itself, as opposed
to using a brain to make predictions and anticipate that way. So
basically you understand absolutely nothing about Dubois, and Richard
understands nothing about mitigating mutations, and the only thing you
all got going for you, is your willingness to band together and lie
like hell.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dubois' concept of strong anticipation is explicitly about
> anticipation being embedded in the physical system itself, as opposed
> to using a brain to make predictions and anticipate that way.
As I said, you are clueless. What "system" is operating inside a rock
rhat allows for the processing of data? How would a rock "move" on
it's own if it "decided" to fall this way instead of that way? Let's
see you support your calim in your own words, whitout parroting
material you are ignorant of the meaning.
> So
> basically you understand absolutely nothing about Dubois,
That's funny, coming from a loon that thinks rocks are inteligent.
> and Richard
> understands nothing about mitigating mutations,
I strongly suspect he understands the subject several magnitudes over
your tenious grasp. Basically, you know the words, but not their
meaning.
> and the only thing you
> all got going for you, is your willingness to band together
That could also be a subtle hint that you are full of crap, and do not
understand what you are talking about.
> and lie like hell.
What lie? But, then again, that's your reaction to everyone that
demonstrates your foolishness.
Boikat
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's whatever. Anybody referencing a paper talking about unexpected
> numbers of basically beneficial, mitigating mutations, as supporting
> evidence for the theory of natural selection with random mutations,
> doesn't understand anything.
Fine.
Do some research, gather evidence, formulate an hypothesis, test it by
the acquisition of further evidence, write up your results and submit
them to an academic journal.
As we all know perfectly well that you are incapable of formulating
clearly any ideas about anything, let alone use the tools of science
to investigate them, your opinion is utterly worthless.
Get an education instead of calling those who have taken the time to
do so, and have made a contribution to our knowledge of biology
liars.
It's pathetically dishonest.
> ...
>
> read more »
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom just like the rest, so you don't earn any respect for being a
scientist.
On 9 jun, 20:47, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> ...
>
> meer lezen �- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
nando_r...@yahoo.com
anticipation.
bpuharic
"richardal...@googlemail.com"
<richardal...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 9, 2:35�pm, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
><nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Obviously being a professional evolutionary biologist just makes you
>> out to be a liar,
>
>What an offensive little shit you are!
he's more than that. he's an islamist fanatic who advocates gas
chambers for scientists, clitorectomies, admires mohammed atta...etc
etc etc
nando_r...@yahoo.com
universe as ridiculous, refuses to consider it for the formation of
life, and undermines it for humanity, is just giving a blatantly false
view of everything. Because these jokers are prevalent in science,
most anybody who has not come into contact with modern science will
have a fundamentally more accurate view of how things are.
On 10 jun, 00:28, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 06:57:39 -0700 (PDT),
> "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
bpuharic
>All bullshit. A scientist who discounts freedom for the enitre
>universe as ridiculou\\\
the universe doesn't have freedom. human beings have freedom
it's ironic. you think electrons have freedom but sexy women should be
killed.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
assholes etc.
On 10 jun, 01:41, bpuharic <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 16:26:05 -0700 (PDT), "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
bpuharic
>Ridiculous. Your science is toiletpaper. The scientists lunatics,
>assholes etc.
so you send your islamist nonsense to the internet on a scientist
invented computer?? isnt that a bit hypocritical?
gee. why not pray to allah? mebbe he'll send that idiot mohammed and
his 72 virgins to help you.
richardal...@googlemail.com
No, you were. Calling the scientists who have published papers showing
that you are wrong liars simply shows what an offensive little shit
you are.
> Second, you destroy knowledge about
> freedom just like the rest, so you don't earn any respect for being a
> scientist.
What on earth gives you the idea that I give a flying fuck for the
respect of an offensive little shit like you?
RF
> ...
>
> read more »
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ridiculous. Your science is toiletpaper. The scientists lunatics,
> assholes etc.
So why does it work?
I'm sure that others will see the irony that you use devices made
possible by the science you reject as "toiletpaper" to communicate
your rejection of science.
RF
Michael Young
retard, but I feel that's deeply offensive to those unfortunate enough
to be born with Down's syndrome. However, I've met some individuals
who do, and they have a much better mental clarity and are far more
polite than nando.
Who understands nothing.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
supposedly supports natural selection is true 2 Micheal doesn't know
anything about freedom 3 Micheal destroys knowledge about freedom.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
talking about unexpected numbers of beneficial mutations as support
for natural selection. So, huh? You don't understand what you are
referencing. And then you put up your credentials as an evolutionary
biologist to pretend what I say isn't true. A credentialed liar.
And from where I am sitting, I know for sure freedom is real, and know
for sure all of you have no knowledge about it. Not just that you have
some different knowledge than mine. I know for sure you will all be
talking like morons all over the place, making stuff up as you go
along, whenever the issue of freedom comes up. I have the evidence for
it, I've seen it dozens of times, without any exception. It's an
established fact that you all know nothing about it. And being a moron
about freedom, and willfully destroying the knowledge about it, then
it doesn't matter what you do, then you will never share in the glory
of science.
And for using a computer. There is no true ownership except by the
spirit.
On Jun 10, 9:11 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> All still whatever from where I am sitting. You reference a paper
> talking about unexpected numbers of beneficial mutations as support
> for natural selection
No, I referenced a paper which models evolution by natural selection
mathematically to show that your assertion that, and I quote "All
mathematicians who have calculated it, say random mutation is not
sufficient" is flatly false.
Do you withdraw that statement, or do you prefer to be exposed as a
liar? It's your problem, not mine.
.> So, huh? You don't understand what you are
> referencing. And then you put up your credentials as an evolutionary
> biologist to pretend what I say isn't true. A credentialed liar.
...and calling others liars without any evidence that they are liars
is yet another example of the fact that you have no evidence or
argument to offer.
>
> And from where I am sitting, I know for sure freedom is real,
Well bully for you. Why should anyone else give a flying fuck for
your fantasies?
> and know
> for sure all of you have no knowledge about it.
As you have demonstrated over and over again that you can't even what
"freedom" in the sense that you use the term actually means, neither
does anyone else, not even you.
> Not just that you have
> some different knowledge than mine.
No, it's that I have knowledge of my subject. All you have is
fantasies and delusions of adequacy.
> I know for sure you will all be
> talking like morons all over the place, making stuff up as you go
> along,
...and calling anyone who points out that you have neither evidence
nor argument to offer merely demonstrates yet again your dishonesty.
> whenever the issue of freedom comes up. I have the evidence for
> it,
As you have been unable to produce any such evidence, this is yet
another flat falsehood.
> I've seen it dozens of times,
No, you haven't. You've imagined it.
>without any exception. It's an
> established fact that you all know nothing about it. And being a moron
> about freedom, and willfully destroying the knowledge about it, then
> it doesn't matter what you do, then you will never share in the glory
> of science.
How many scientific papers have you published?
>
> And for using a computer. There is no true ownership except by the
> spirit.
...all of which is utterly irrelevant to the fact that it was made
possible by the findings of the science you reject.
RF
> ...
>
> read more �
Boikat
In what way?
> and have no idea at all about strong
> anticipation.
>
You didn't answer my question. What computations are going on inside
a rock? Where is the processor in a rock? Whay powers its processor?
How does a rock act upon its decision? How does a rock decide to go
this way or that?
Answer the questions, or admit you are lying.
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know 3, certain, facts. 1 Michael never read the reference which
> supposedly supports natural selection is true
Evidence?
> 2 Micheal doesn't know
> anything about freedom 3 Micheal destroys knowledge about freedom.
How can he destroy something you claim he doen't know about?
Back on you meds.
Boikat
Boikat
The usual dismissal from a twit that doesn't want to confront the
points raised..
> You reference a paper
> talking about unexpected numbers of beneficial mutations as support
> for natural selection. So, huh? You don't understand what you are
> referencing.
Projection.
> And then you put up your credentials as an evolutionary
> biologist to pretend what I say isn't true. A credentialed liar.
Or, maybe, you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> And from where I am sitting, I know for sure freedom is real, and know
> for sure all of you have no knowledge about it.
Not your version, anyway. You don't even know what you mean by
"knowledge of freedom" either.
> Not just that you have
> some different knowledge than mine. I know for sure you will all be
> talking like morons all over the place, making stuff up as you go
> along,
Like you?
> whenever the issue of freedom comes up. I have the evidence for
> it, I've seen it dozens of times, without any exception.
Good. Please present the evidence that rocks can make choices. Please
also xplain how rocks make choices and act upon those choises.
> It's an
> established fact that you all know nothing about it. And being a moron
> about freedom, and willfully destroying the knowledge about it,
What "knowledge of freedom" has he destroyed? Please be specific.
> then
> it doesn't matter what you do, then you will never share in the glory
> of science.
You're an idiot.
>
> And for using a computer. There is no true ownership except by the
> spirit.
I assure you, no "spirit" owns my computer. If you disagree, please
provide evidence to the contrary.
Boikat
Michael Young
On Jun 10, 11:51 am, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know 3, certain, facts. 1 Michael never read the reference which
> supposedly supports natural selection is true
Oh, I didn't?
> 2 Micheal doesn't know
> anything about freedom
And how's that?
> 3 Micheal destroys knowledge about freedom.
I do? Pray tell how I accomplish this incredible feat!
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
sufficient
Richard: so too there are who calculated it works, here is a reference
to a paper which establishes it is by random mutation and natural
selection..................................and an extra double
shitload of beneficial mutations to mitigate all those deleterious
mutations
Be gone imposter! Liar! If I had a farmer bring me food with such
arrogance, same as you bring knowledge, as if he had made it all
himself, I would take the food, blessed creation of the holy spirit,
and kick the farmer, for his misplaced pride.
On 10 jun, 18:25, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Syamsu: every mathematician who calculated it says randomness is not
> sufficient
A flat falsehood. As the paper which I referenced demonstrates.
> Richard: so too there are who calculated it works, here is a reference
> to a paper which establishes it is by random mutation and natural
> selection..................................and an extra double
> shitload of beneficial mutations
Which just goes to show that you don't understand the paper. It makes
no reference whatsoever to "extra beneficial mutations".
> to mitigate all those deleterious
> mutations
>
> Be gone imposter! Liar!
Calling those who exposes your dishonesty liars only makes you look
even more dishonest.
> If I had a farmer bring me food with such
> arrogance, same as you bring knowledge, as if he had made it all
> himself, I would take the food, blessed creation of the holy spirit,
> and kick the farmer, for his misplaced pride.
As I commented previously, why on earth do you think anyone gives a
flying fuck for your ignorant ramblings?
RF
Michael Young
Answer my damn questions instead of throwing insults at people for
disagreeing with you! How 'bout them apples?
In case they slipped your memory or by your eyeballs:
nando_r...@yahoo.com
about how freedom works, you will blither on inccessantly using
whatever comes to mind, then forgetting basically all what you said
next time round when you are asked, and you would deny any
sophisticated knowledge about freedom that is well worked out, with
moronic references to the scientific method, and how science prospers
by looking at everything in terms of force only.
So you see, magic works.
Now you are reading some moronic wiki about freedom, and googling it,
to prove you know anything about freedom.
So you see, telephatic out of body transportation also works, I can
see you behind your computer googling furiously.
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Let's just say that by magic I determined that, when you are asked
> about how freedom works, you will blither on inccessantly using
> whatever comes to mind, then forgetting basically all what you said
> next time round when you are asked, and you would deny any
> sophisticated knowledge about freedom that is well worked out, with
> moronic references to the scientific method, and how science prospers
> by looking at everything in terms of force only.
>
> So you see, magic works.
>
> Now you are reading some moronic wiki about freedom, and googling it,
> to prove you know anything about freedom.
>
> So you see, telephatic out of body transportation also works, I can
> see you behind your computer googling furiously.
>
In other words, *you* don't know what you're wanking about.
Boikat
Boikat
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Syamsu: every mathematician who calculated it says randomness is not
> sufficient
> Richard: so too there are who calculated it works, here is a reference
> to a paper which establishes it is by random mutation and natural
> selection..................................and an extra double
> shitload of beneficial mutations to mitigate all those deleterious
> mutations
>
> Be gone imposter! Liar! If I had a farmer bring me food with such
> arrogance, same as you bring knowledge, as if he had made it all
> himself, I would take the food, blessed creation of the holy spirit,
> and kick the farmer, for his misplaced pride.
>
You're an idiot, you're insane, and your meds wore off, again, didn't
they?
Boikat
Boikat
do not support anything you are claiming it supports. As stated
before, you are clueless, and don't know what you're talking about.
Again, how do rocks make decisions? How do they act upon their
decisions? Where is the thought process required to make decisions
taking place in a rock?
Care to try to answer that again, of is evasion all you have?
I betting "evasion".
Boikat
haiku jones
Ah, but let us not forget that nando is "telephatic".
"Telephatic nando"...I rather like that. Let's
save it for future use.
>
> Boikat
nando_r...@yahoo.com
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"in a number of recent studies, a prevalence of antagonistic epistasis
(the tendency of multiple mutations to have a mitigating rather than
reinforcing effect) has been observed."
What's this so many antogonistic / beneficial mutations mitigating
deleterious ones.
"What factors may explain a tendency toward antagonism? Here are four
possible explanations, AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS:
1. Biased recovery: In some experimental systems, it is difficult to
isolate genotypes with very low fitness, including non-viable ones. "
2.
3.
4.
So first of maybe the finding is wrong, maybe there aren't so many
beneficial mutations on average because they forgot to look at the non-
viable organsims.
AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS besides the 4 mentioned!
And then they ramble on a bit about explaining, and after giving an
explanation say:
"Yet, this correlation does not explain the overall preponderance of
antagonistic epistasis observed in two computational systems [2,11],
nor the absence of overall synergistic epistasis in most biological
systems that have been carefully studied in this regard."
So they CANNOT explain the preponderance of all mitigating
relationships, and the absense of deleterious mutations reinforcing
each others deleterious effect.
So be gone LIAR! back to your seedy offices, with papers full of lies.
On 10 jun, 21:21, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
nando_r...@yahoo.com
scientific authority of Boikat's mother and father.
On 10 jun, 22:01, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > Boikat- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Mark Isaak
> <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 2 Micheal doesn't know
>> anything about freedom
>
> And how's that?
This one is easy. Nando has a private meaning of "freedom" that nobody
except him knows, except that it has little or nothing to do with how
nomal people use the word.
>> 3 Micheal destroys knowledge about freedom.
>
> I do? Pray tell how I accomplish this incredible feat!
Presumably by trying to confuse people by using the conventional
definition of freedom.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
nando_r...@yahoo.com
freedom than mine, he has no knowledge about freedom. You can see for
yourself that Mark never described ANYTHING AT ALL in terms of it
acting freely, in YEARS on talk.origins, for the 15 BILLION YEARS of
universal history he posted about. You see that's what somebody who
has no knowledge about freedom would do, simply never post about
anything acting freely, the evidence is clear.
richardal...@googlemail.com
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Richard, evolutiary biologist 0073231241444, licensend to lie.
>
> "in a number of recent studies, a prevalence of antagonistic epistasis
> (the tendency of multiple mutations to have a mitigating rather than
> reinforcing effect) has been observed."
>
> What's this so many antogonistic / beneficial mutations mitigating
> deleterious ones.
>
> "What factors may explain a tendency toward antagonism?
> Here are four
> possible explanations, AND THERE MAY BE OTHERS:
> 1. Biased recovery: In some experimental systems, it is difficult to
> isolate genotypes with very low fitness, including non-viable ones. "
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
>
> So first of maybe the finding is wrong,
All scientific findings might be wrong. It's inherent to the nature of
science.
> maybe there aren't so many
> beneficial mutations on average because they forgot to look at the non-
> viable organsims.
So you are now accusing the scientists of incompetence!
>
> AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHER EXPLANATIONS besides the 4 mentioned!
Quite so. Your point?
>
> And then they ramble on a bit about explaining, and after giving an
> explanation say:
>
> "Yet, this correlation does not explain the overall preponderance of
> antagonistic epistasis observed in two computational systems [2,11],
> nor the absence of overall synergistic epistasis in most biological
> systems that have been carefully studied in this regard."
Quite so. It is a limited mathematical model of part of the system, as
the paper makes clear. However, what *is* true is that it is a paper
providing a mathematical model which incorporates random mutations and
which does *not* conclude that such mutations are not sufficient to
drive evolution.
>
> So they CANNOT explain the preponderance of all mitigating
> relationships, and the absense of deleterious mutations reinforcing
> each others deleterious effect.
>
> So be gone LIAR! back to your seedy offices, with papers full of lies.
Calling others liars when your dishonesty is exposed only makes you
look more dishonest.
It's your problem, not mine.
RF
> ...
>
> read more »
nando_r...@yahoo.com
relationships of deleterirous mutations, and an unexplained
prepondarence of relationships where one mutation mitigates the
deleterious effect of another mutation, and according to Richard,
this, somehow, is evidence that natural selection with random mutation
is right.
So first the facts, then your delusional deceit.
On 10 jun, 23:16, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> ...
>
> meer lezen �- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Michael Young
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> So now we will all say that there is an unexplained lack of
> relationships of deleterirous mutations, and an unexplained
> prepondarence of relationships where one mutation mitigates the
> deleterious effect of another mutation, and according to Richard,
> this, somehow, is evidence that natural selection with random mutation
> is right.
Does anyone else think this makes absolutely no sense?
nando_r...@yahoo.com
"Yet, this correlation does not explain the overall preponderance of
antagonistic epistasis observed in two computational systems [2,11],
nor the absence of overall synergistic epistasis in most biological
systems that have been carefully studied in this regard."
Prof Weird
It's not supposed to make sense - nando has no real understanding of
what the paper said, and he's trying to escape.
nando originally bellowed that 'all mathematicians that looked at
mutation and selection determined that it cannot work'.
Rich gave him an example of a paper where mathematicians DID look, and
they determined that mutations can indeed do the job. Which refuted
nando's original 'point'.
Since reality did not conform to nando's delusions, he had no choice
but to go into his patented 'howling of insults/posturing/
gibbertwittian smokescreen' routines - in this case by changing the
topic to something slightly related.
In other words - nando didn't like Rich's answer, so he changed the
question. Then raged that Rich didn't answer properly.
AFAICT :
In their computer program, the researchers OBSERVED more antagonistic
effects than synergistic (ie, a more mutated strings should have fewer
viable sequences, but there were more viable than expected); this is
EXPLAINED by the facts that different sequences can have the same
viable shape, and there are many different viable shapes (a string of
sequences can 'move' by mutations from one viable neutral net into
another different viable neutral net). IIRC, one of their figures
showed that compensatory mutations are the main factor keeping the
expected decay rate in check at high numbers of mutation steps.
That there were many compensatory mutations is NOT a 'pulled out the
nether regions to save the theory !!1!' move like nando 'thinks' it
is, but an actual observation.
Given the fact that compensatory mutations are known in nature, nando
is just having an 'elephant fart in the African breezes' moment (ie,
making a lot of loud, obnoxious but ultimately meaningless noise).
Prof Weird
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's almost literally from the text, which you never read.
>
> "Yet, this correlation does not explain the overall preponderance of
> antagonistic epistasis observed in two computational systems [2,11],
> nor the absence of overall synergistic epistasis in most biological
> systems that have been carefully studied in this regard."
The rest of the paragraph :
"Although we found wide variation in the epistatic parameter for RNA
secondary structure folding, 98 of 100 reference sequences showed an
excess of antagonistic epistasis (b<1), and only two exhibited
synergistic epistasis (b >1). WE DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS OVERALL
EXCESS OF ANTAGONISTIC INTERACTIONS RESULTS FROM COMPENSATORY
MUTATIONS (Figures 5, 6, 7), which are evidently important for the
shape of the fitness function whether or not a sequence is in the
middle of a dense cluster."
So they didn't pull the idea of 'unlimited beneficial mutations' out
of their nether regions as you have been insinuating they did.
Michael Young
> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > So now we will all say that there is an unexplained lack of
> > > relationships of deleterirous mutations, and an unexplained
> > > prepondarence of relationships where one mutation mitigates the
> > > deleterious effect of another mutation, and according to Richard,
> > > this, somehow, is evidence that natural selection with random mutation
> > > is right.
>
> > Does anyone else think this makes absolutely no sense?
No, what you have said above is not what is said in the paper. Great
job on that.
Also, the two posters above me did quite well in ripping apart
anything you had remotely resembling an argument. You continue to be
wrong in every sense of the word.
Nashton
It's only you.
Michael Young
Apparently not. A shock that you come running to nando's defense.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
per definition disallows the possibility that mutations would make
coherent sense in terms of fitness BEFORE they are selected. So to say
this supports natural selection is to say: random mutation
irrespective of fitness, then add a network of compensatory mutations
in terms of fitness when nobody is looking, and then natural
selection.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
i've known.
aganunitsi
<nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> All bullshit what you write. Natural selection from random mutation
> per definition disallows the possibility that mutations would make
> coherent sense in terms of fitness BEFORE they are selected. So to say
> this supports natural selection is to say: random mutation
> irrespective of fitness, then add a network of compensatory mutations
> in terms of fitness when nobody is looking, and then natural
> selection.
No, if different sets of random mutations have no difference in terms
of fitness, then there is nothing for nature to select from. It would
be like a cable company putting out only channels of white noise and
trying to predict which channel would get a larger audience.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
to selection, but no coherent organization of mutations in terms of
fitness prior to selection. Selection is supposed to provide the
organization in terms of fitness, by weeding out the less fit,
reproducing the fit etc.
nando_r...@yahoo.com
league to support, he likes winners, and winning. So much confidence
he get's from all the papers, which he doesn't understand at all, that
the evolutionists are right. I am also like that, I also enjoy
winning. This is why I chose to support the side that says freedom is
real. The confidence I have that freedom is real is uncanny. I
sometimes find myself having done groceryshopping, chosing stuff, and
in considering it in retrospect find I had not a single doubt whatever
about it that freedom is real in the entire experience. And when
freedom is real, then to describe things in terms of decisionprocesses
like creation or intelligent design must be true. It's in the logical
structure that if things can turn out one way or another, then most
definitely creation must be true. If for some organism it is true that
at some point there was a possibility there might have not been that
organism, then most definitely the origin of that organism is through
a decisionprocess. No matter what bullshit evolutionists write, there
is unshakable confidence that the creationists are the winning team.
So in comparing, by reasonable judgement, evolutionist confidence vs
creationist confidence, for sure the creationists win out.
On 11 jun, 01:38, "nando_rontel...@yahoo.com"
> > wrong in every sense of the word.- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Mark Isaak
> It's just a lie. It's not the case Mark has different knowledge about
> freedom than mine, he has no knowledge about freedom. You can see for
> yourself that Mark never described ANYTHING AT ALL in terms of it
> acting freely, in YEARS on talk.origins, for the 15 BILLION YEARS of
> universal history he posted about. You see that's what somebody who has
> no knowledge about freedom would do, simply never post about anything
> acting freely, the evidence is clear.
>
> On 10 jun, 22:42, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 12:25:15 -0700, Michael Young wrote:
>> > <nando_rontel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> 2 Micheal doesn't know
>> >> anything about freedom
>>
>> > And how's that?
>>
>> This one is easy. �Nando has a private meaning of "freedom" that
>> nobody except him knows, except that it has little or nothing to do
>> with how nomal people use the word.
>>
>> >> 3 Micheal destroys knowledge about freedom.
>>
>> > I do? Pray tell how I accomplish this incredible feat!
>>
>> Presumably by trying to confuse people by using the conventional
>> definition of freedom.
>>
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 13:44:13 -0700, nando_r...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's just a lie. It's not the case Mark has different knowledge about
> freedom than mine, he has no knowledge about freedom. You can see for
> yourself that Mark never described ANYTHING AT ALL in terms of it
> acting freely, in YEARS on talk.origins, for the 15 BILLION YEARS of
> universal history he posted about. You see that's what somebody who has
> no knowledge about freedom would do, simply never post about anything
> acting freely, the evidence is clear.
I am flattered that you have read and remember everything I have ever
written. I did not know the stuff I wrote 14.8 billion years ago was
even accessible. To the best of my knowledge, I have never written here
about Yugoslavia or the countries it has become. Does that mean I know
nothing about that subject, either?
Apropos of nothing except as an excuse that you may not comment similarly
in the future: Parasitic wasps, when foraging for a host, move about
freely. But when they find and target a host, they are constrained by
their instincts into certain determined behaviors.
aganunitsi
Oh, I see what you're saying. Prior to selection, a population of
random mutations will be... random.
Boikat
Evasion noted. You don't have a clue, or you are a liar. Prove me
wrong:
Explain how a rock thinks. Where is the "processor" in a rock. If a
rock can make decisions, how does it act on that decision.
> > > Why don't you start reading Dubois then.
>
> > I've read thorugh the articles you posted links to already, and they
> > do not support anything you are claiming it supports. As stated
> > before, you are clueless, and don't know what you're talking about.
> > Again, how do rocks make decisions? How do they act upon their
> > decisions? Where is the thought process required to make decisions
> > taking place in a rock?
>
> > Care to try to answer that again, of is evasion all you have?
>
> > I betting "evasion".
I'm betting more evasion.
Boikat