Challenge to Evolutionists...
Gerard
happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
feats.
The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless), natural
selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
genetic drift (can just as well represent the means for creative
diversity) and migration ("be fruitful and fill the earth").
Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
like evolution. If you don't understand this challenge, then you
probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
unqualified to comply.
"Only the facts matter" - Gerard08853
squealpiggy
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
>
>
>
How do you walk a thousand miles without shoes?
One step at a time.
Bodega
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
millions of details. If you have an alternative
theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
died in ... a flood?
Gerard
>
> Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
> millions of details. If you have an alternative
> theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
> where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>
> Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
> died in ... a flood?
First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
evolution.
Secondly, I use alot of the same evidence for a creation proposal.
Mutations were indeed involved, but to attribute randomness to them is
purely presumptive. However, since these mutations would've been new
codes capable of being regulated to construct designs such as
aerodynamic wings or seeds, keen eyesight in birds (or design
relativity - means to fit the needs) this would demonstrate an
intelligibleness to the development of life scenarios. Random causes?
Divine selection (not natural selection), genetic drift and migration
fit well into creation scenario also.
Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
bible.
Oh, and what do you mean by a flood? Noah's flood? The turbidity alone
would've killed fish, but also, all niches and food sources would've
been disrupted, resulting in death too. The bible references to
creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they play little role
in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
and faith based response. Redemption and cultivation of souls.
Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
details in God's handiwork in creation?
Robert Carnegie
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
As far as I understand, the aerodynamic profiles of seeds, insects,
and birds, are not "co-evolutionary". That is to say, each flies by
and for itself.
raven1
<markge...@aol.com> wrote:
Please don't eat me! My brothers are *much* fatter than me, and
they'll be along any minute now!
David Canzi
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
>feats.
>
>The weak base or foundation of evolution theory
The weakness you think you see in the theory is not really there.
It's all in your head.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Nomen Publicus
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
The US electoral college? Bus timetables? New Zealand?
--
As an atheist I don't accept the god theory.
Nomen Publicus
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
True flying has evolved at least twice. Gliding animals have evolved much
more often. The details are explained in any number of introductory books
on evolution available from any library or book store.
> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
> represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless), natural
> selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
> genetic drift (can just as well represent the means for creative
> diversity) and migration ("be fruitful and fill the earth").
You ask and answer your own questions having already decided
>
> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
> can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
> like evolution. If you don't understand this challenge, then you
> probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
> unqualified to comply.
Creation science contains no predictive properties, neither is it any useful
kind of explaination. Goddidit is no different to "i don't know" as an
answer.
--
Isaac Asimov: Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived.
Tiny Bulcher
> On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Bodega
>>
>> Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
>> millions of details. If you have an alternative
>> theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
>> where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>>
>> Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
>> died in ... a flood?
>
> First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
> evolution.
Have you bothered to find out said details?
> Secondly, I use alot of the same evidence for a creation proposal.
> Mutations were indeed involved,
How do you know?
> but to attribute randomness to them is
> purely presumptive.
Whereas attributing them to a deity isn't, apparently.
> However, since these mutations would've been new
> codes capable of being regulated to construct designs such as
> aerodynamic wings or seeds, keen eyesight in birds (or design
> relativity - means to fit the needs) this would demonstrate an
> intelligibleness to the development of life scenarios. Random causes?
> Divine selection (not natural selection), genetic drift and migration
> fit well into creation scenario also.
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
I'm sure you can interpret Bible verses to make them say anything you
want.
> Oh, and what do you mean by a flood? Noah's flood? The turbidity alone
> would've killed fish, but also, all niches and food sources would've
> been disrupted, resulting in death too. The bible references to
> creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they play little role
> in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
> and faith based response. Redemption and cultivation of souls.
> Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
> details in God's handiwork in creation?
Ah, right. So the Bible is an exact and literal explanation for
everything. Except when it isn't. Why bother with all that malarkey
about divine selection and genetic drift? Just say 'God did it'.
Why do things fall to Earth? Who cares? God does it. How fast does light
travel? Who cares? God does it. I wonder what lightining is? Who cares?
God does it. What causes cancer? God does. See how easy it is?
Why are you bothered, anyway? What offences against morality and faith
based response are committed by assuming that the uinverse works by
natural means? If there is a god, that's how s/he works. Evolution is no
more contradictory to the presence of a deity than physics is.
Jim Lovejoy
news:qhmnu5-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk:
I totally disagree. Goddidit is "i don't know and there's no way to find
out." "I don't know" is a much more useful answer.
Rolf
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
Looks more like it is the other way around WRT who "probably don't
understand."
From which follows "are unqualified."
Rolf
Rolf
"Gerard" <markge...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
[snipped stupid questions]
No, nobody WILL explain to you what you should have found out by yourself
before starting to ask stupid questions. 80% of all quations are actually
statements, and your statement is clear. So why don't you go back to your
bible and reread the answers that you already have? Aren't they enough for
you? Not enough faith in them?
So you don't believe in random mutations, do you? So, since you think
cancers, tumors, Downs Syndrome and many other mutations are not random, why
don't you tell us what they are?
You don't need any explanation, you need an education. Probably some
de-programming too. Too much bible thumping is damaging to reason.
richardal...@googlemail.com
wrote:
> Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> > happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> > insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> > used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> > feats.
>
> True flying has evolved at least twice.
At least four times:
Insects
Pterosaurs
Birds
Bats
Thurisaz the Einherjer
willingness to listen to, any serious explanation.
*PLONK*
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Robert Carnegie
I don't think it's true that creation science makes no predictions.
They're just wrong predictions. For instance that any two species
that have existed may be found fossilised together in their modern
versions, since they were all created at the same time in their modern
state. And probably, since they were all created in the same place,
no species introduced to new territory will compete or hunt species
already there to extinctIon.
Having said that, it's probably an oversimplification, I don't really
understand creation science. The natural competitive balance probably
existed only in the neighbourhood of the garden of Eden and in an
unfallen world. In warmer, cooler, wetter or drier climates, and
after the introduction of carnivorism following the Flood, extinctions
were liable to occur, with the dinosaurs and mammoths conspicuous
victims. However, I think before the theory of evolution there was a
creation science theory that God never allows any species to become
extinct, but I don't remember the details and evidence seems to go
against it, hmm?
Devils Advocaat
> Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> > bible.
>
> The US electoral college? Bus timetables? New Zealand?
How about that inexplicable urge to eat a kebab after boozing it up
all night?
Ernest Major
<1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> writes
challenge could stem from a lack of clarity in your presentation. If
you're advocating the way that God did it, but in a manner
indistinguishable from natural processes, then obviously there's nothing
in the evidence to distinguish the two. From a scientific viewpoint
Occam's Razor applies.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<zza...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> writes
>> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
>> feats.
>
>True flying has evolved at least twice. Gliding animals have evolved
>much more often. The details are explained in any number of
>introductory books on evolution available from any library or book
>store.
At least four times - insects, pterosaurs, bats and birds.
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
>
> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
> represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless)
since both evolution, and mutations...are observed, how does one base
one's case arguing against what is seen in nature?
>
> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
> can be evidence for creation
what is 'evidence for creation'? is this like 'evidence for the easter
bunny'?
wf3h
> On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Bodega
>
>
>
> > Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
> > millions of details. If you have an alternative
> > theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
> > where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>
> > Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
> > died in ... a flood?
>
> First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
> evolution.
>
> Secondly, I use alot of the same evidence for a creation proposal.
> Mutations were indeed involved, but to attribute randomness to them is
> purely presumptive.
which is nonsense. in statistical thermodynamics it would, presumably,
be possible to track the motions of trillions of trillions of atoms
and determine the source of their energy. such an effort would be a
waste of time given the success of stat thermo in treating energy
transfer
similarly, one sees mutations in nature. since one can not monitory
EVERY factor in nature that causes mutations, such mutations are, by
definition, 'random'.
your ignorance of science is remarkable.
However, since these mutations would've been new
> codes capable of being regulated to construct designs such as
> aerodynamic wings or seeds, keen eyesight in birds (or design
> relativity - means to fit the needs) this would demonstrate an
> intelligibleness to the development of life scenarios. Random causes?
> Divine selection (not natural selection), genetic drift and migration
> fit well into creation scenario also.
OK. go get me a 'divine selection' meter so i can measure the effects
of 'divine selection'. otherwise it's not scientific.
>
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
my flat tire can be explained with 'divine selection'. that's why it's
not science. it can explain everything therefore is not testable.
>
> Oh, and what do you mean by a flood? Noah's flood? The turbidity alone
> would've killed fish,\\
proof? oh. none.
but also, all niches and food sources would've
> been disrupted, resulting in death too. The bible references to
> creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they play little role
> in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
> and faith based response. Redemption and cultivation of souls.
> Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
> details in God's handiwork in creation?
well it's obvious you don't care.
Frank J
> Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk> wrote innews:qhmnu5-...@buffy.sighup.org.uk:
And "Some unidentified, unembodied designer that may or may not be God
did it, but it's not my job to speculate, much less test, when or how"
is even more useful than both. Useful to mislead, that is.
(M)-adman
Life is the evidence.
--
This has been another:
"helping the evolutionist' to understand" moment, with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
Frank J
I see ~20 replies, so I won't try to duplicate any. What I'll do
instead is assume for the moment that aerodynamic development was a
result of "creation." My questions to you are:
1. When was aerodynamic development first created?
2. Was it created "in vivo" (an aerodynamic organism descended from a
non-aerodymanic one (or two)), or did it require an origin of life
event?
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 10, 9:13 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
> >> represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless)
>
> > since both evolution, and mutations...are observed, how does one base
> > one's case arguing against what is seen in nature?
>
> >> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
> >> can be evidence for creation
>
> > what is 'evidence for creation'? is this like 'evidence for the easter
> > bunny'?
>
> Life is the evidence.
>
> --
a non-reply if there ever was one. creationists seem to think their
argument is:
1. i said it
2. therefore it's true
3. no evidence is needed
TomS
<bab525f5-6ee5-44d0...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, wf3h
stated..."
IMHO, this shows a problem with asking for the evidence for
something when the "something" is not well defined:
Anything at all can be "evidence".
What is needed is, first, some definition or description of
*What sorts of things are created (adult individuals, eggs,
organs, molecules, species, communities ...) and what sorts are
not and what is the difference
*When did creation take place (a single time hundreds of millions
or billions of years ago, a few times over a week a few thousand
years ago, many times over many millions of years, still going on)
*How did creation take place
*Why
*Where
*Who
And only then does it make sense to talk about what might be
evidence for that particular variety of creation, as distinguished
from other possibilities.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Louann Miller
c94861...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
> evolution.
Scientific journals are stuffed with details. It's just that you haven't
read them.
Which doesn't make you particularly dumb, or evolution a sneaky hidden-
by-conspiracies subject. Most things in life are like that.
Unless you do it for a living, you probably can't describe the exact
workings of your television or your computer in any detail. You use them
anyway. You live in a state and/or country with thousands of pages of
laws and legal interpretations you've never read; you get by pretty well.
If you get a serious illness (say, arthritis or cancer) you aren't going
to understand what's happening to you and which treatments are likely to
work on the same level that your doctor will.
As an average person, you may not look at the diversity of life and see
how evolutionary processes cause it. But as an average person, you can't
look at the image on your t.v. screen and see how integrated circuits
and/or cathode ray tubes cause THAT, either.
You don't assume the electrical engineers are lying about t.v., that it's
caused by direct miracles from God instead of electronics. Why do you
assume the biologists are lying?
Matt Silberstein
<markge...@aol.com> in
<1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
>feats.
What level of detail would you like? I can give you a few thousand
pages to read, but that does not cover the whole story.
>
>The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
>represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless),
Do you assert that they don't exist?
> natural
>selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
How much material are you willing to read? I will give you links if
you will read the articles.
>genetic drift (can just as well represent the means for creative
>diversity)
Huh?
>and migration ("be fruitful and fill the earth").
Huh?
>Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
>can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
>like evolution.
I can distinguish evolution from some notions of creation, but
"creation" is so poorly defined that some notion of creation can fit
any evidence set.
>If you don't understand this challenge,
I do, you are trolling. But good work.
>then you
>probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
>unqualified to comply.
>
Can you define evolution for me and provide the four major lines of
evidence that the biologists present as evidence for Common Descent.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Bodega
>
>
>
> > Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
> > millions of details. If you have an alternative
> > theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
> > where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>
> > Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
> > died in ... a flood?
>
> First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
> evolution.
Excuse me? Have you ever read any book on evolution written someone
who knows something about the subject?There is a century and a half
worth of scientific papers describing the mechanics of evolution is
such exhaustive detail that it would take several large volumes to
present it.
Why do you think that your ignorance of the subject represents a valid
argument?
>
> Secondly, I use alot of the same evidence for a creation proposal.
...but, unlike scientists, ignore any evidence which shows that your
proposal is wrong.
> Mutations were indeed involved, but to attribute randomness to them is
> purely presumptive.
No, it's a conclusion drawn from the evidence. We have studied the
incidence of mutations, and they are random in respect of fitness. If
you think that they are not, there is a large body of scientific
literature you need to address. Your ignorance of that literature, and
the evidence and argument it contains is not a valid argument against
the incidence of mutations.
> However, since these mutations would've been new
> codes capable of being regulated to construct designs such as
> aerodynamic wings or seeds, keen eyesight in birds (or design
> relativity - means to fit the needs) this would demonstrate an
> intelligibleness to the development of life scenarios.
...and as this is nothing more than fantasy, it is irrelevant.
Mutations are random in respect of fitness.
> Random causes?
> Divine selection (not natural selection), genetic drift and migration
> fit well into creation scenario also.
Perhaps you can give us an example of *anything* which would *not* fit
into a creation scenario.
>
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
How a computer works. The function of a carburator. The offside rule
in soccer. Cricket. Why the sky is blue. Why the moon orbits the
earth. Plate tectonics. The geology of this and other planets.
Magnetism. Nuclear fussion. The periodic table.
Frankly, I can think of very little which *can* be explained with
information from the Bible.
>
> Oh, and what do you mean by a flood? Noah's flood? The turbidity alone
> would've killed fish, but also, all niches and food sources would've
> been disrupted, resulting in death too.
...and as we find that the geological record is largely composed to
sedimentary structures which are *not* highly turbated, it's very
clear that they can't be explained by a flood.
> The bible references to
> creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they play little role
> in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
> and faith based response. Redemption and cultivation of souls.
> Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
> details in God's handiwork in creation?
Quite so.
Perhaps you can explain why creationists insist that their particular
interpretation of these accounts is literally true, and that it is
supported by science and should be taught as science in science
classes?
The fact that they are unable to do so without distortion,
misrepresentation and outright falsehoods suggests that they are not
exactly reliable in their claims.
RF
Matt Silberstein
<markge...@aol.com> in
<19c4eedb-b630-43be...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
wrote:
>On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Bodega
>>
>> Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
>> millions of details. If you have an alternative
>> theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
>> where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>>
>> Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
>> died in ... a flood?
>
>First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
>evolution.
How many details do you want? I can provide you with thousands of
pages, but that just scratches the surface of what we know, no less of
what there is to know.
>Secondly, I use alot of the same evidence for a creation proposal.
So you use a lot of the non-existent details.
>Mutations were indeed involved, but to attribute randomness to them is
>purely presumptive.
What do you think "random" means? The scientific definition has been
tested.
>However, since these mutations would've been new
>codes
Nope, new "messages" perhaps, but not new codes. Y
>capable of being regulated to construct designs such as
>aerodynamic wings or seeds, keen eyesight in birds (or design
>relativity - means to fit the needs) this would demonstrate an
>intelligibleness to the development of life scenarios.
How so?
>Random causes?
>Divine selection (not natural selection), genetic drift and migration
>fit well into creation scenario also.
Since divine beings can do anything they want to do, of course it
could fit. It is impossible to make any predictions about divine
beings.
>Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
>bible.
Find me anything that cannot be explained with information from Moby
Dick.
>Oh, and what do you mean by a flood? Noah's flood? The turbidity alone
>would've killed fish, but also, all niches and food sources would've
>been disrupted, resulting in death too.
So how did things survive after? How was the ocean re-populated?
>The bible references to
>creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they play little role
>in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
>and faith based response.
So why fight about evolution?
Redemption and cultivation of souls.
>Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
>details in God's handiwork in creation?
Not you, it seems.
Mike Painter
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
>
> selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
>
> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
> can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
> probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
> unqualified to comply.
>
You use a word in here which shows you do not have a firm grasp of science
and how it works.
Tell us what the word is, explain why you made The error, then we can
discuss your inane comments.
Inez
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
The bible explains very little. There is vague enough language that
you can make any number of claims about various things being
compatible with the bible, but there are almost no explanations in
there.
> The bible references to creation and the flood are vague, mainly because they
> play little role
> in what God's revelation is intended to convey. It's about morality
> and faith based response. Redemption and cultivation of souls.
> Meriting eternal status with the creator. Wow! Who cares about the
> details in God's handiwork in creation?
So why are you here arguing about evolution, if it is all unimportant
detail? If your interest is in redemption of souls, why not do that
instead?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> creationists seem to think
You sure of that?
TomS
<19c4eedb-b630-43be...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Gerard
stated..."
[...snip...]
>Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
>bible.
In whatever sense you mean "explain" ...
If you can explain with information from the Bible that species
are fixed ...
I can just as well explain that the earth is not moving.
Steven L.
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
The evolution of flight in birds, insects, etc., is one of the most
intensively studied problems in evolutionary biology.
Thanx to the Internet, you can do your own homework to find out what is
known (and what is as yet unknown). Just google for
"evolution of flight"
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
The Enigmatic One
<1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>,
markge...@aol.com says...
>Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
>can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
>like evolution. If you don't understand this challenge, then you
>probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
>unqualified to comply.
Erm, I understand that you're a fucking moron.
Does that count?
-Tim
Baron Bodissey
wrote:
<snip>
>
> True flying has evolved at least twice. Gliding animals have evolved much
> more often. The details are explained in any number of introductory books
> on evolution available from any library or book store.
>
Actually, I believe true flying has evolved at least four times:
insects, pterodons, birds, bats.
Baron Bodissey
When science is on the march, nothing stands in its way.
– Amazon Women on the Moon
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
<markge...@aol.com>:
>Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>insects)
They're no "co-evolutionary".
> with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
>feats.
Don't ask to be spoon-fed. Google is Your Friend, libraries
are more so, and a good formal education is best of all.
>The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
>represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless)
Random mutations are observed.
>, natural
>selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
Prove what? That populations exhibit differential success
among their members based on genetic differences? What's to
prove; this is observed repeatedly.
>genetic drift (can just as well represent the means for creative
>diversity) and migration ("be fruitful and fill the earth").
Drift and migration both occur naturally. How is this a
problem for evolutionary theory?
>Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
>can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
>like evolution. If you don't understand this challenge, then you
>probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
>unqualified to comply.
Evidence for evolution has been accumulating for more than 2
centuries, and considerably predate to Darwin's work; again,
Google, libraries and universities are good places to start.
Biology can't really be taught in Usenet newsgroups,
especially to those with biases against facts.
The only possible evidence for creation would be observation
of a "creation event", which hasn't happened yet.
Incredulity and ignorance don't apply as evidence.
>"Only the facts matter"
Agreed; opinions, preconceptions and religious beliefs are
irrelevant.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
mike3
> "Gerard" <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1eb31491-8c5d-4e39...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Can somebody explain to me
>
>
> No, nobody WILL explain to you what you should have found out by yourself
> before starting to ask stupid questions. 80% of all quations are actually
> statements, and your statement is clear. So why don't you go back to your
> bible and reread the answers that you already have? Aren't they enough for
> you? Not enough faith in them?
>
> So you don't believe in random mutations, do you? So, since you think
> cancers, tumors, Downs Syndrome and many other mutations are not random, why
> don't you tell us what they are?
>
> You don't need any explanation, you need an education. Probably some
> de-programming too. Too much bible thumping is damaging to reason.
But that would provide the explanation. Ha.
mike3
<MAILTOsecret...@carcosa.de> wrote:
> You clearly have neither the educational foundation to understand, <snip>
then he should GET it.
Hah.
mike3
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:13:07 -0800 (PST), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
>
> >Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> >happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> >insects)
>
> They're no "co-evolutionary".
>
> > with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> >used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> >feats.
>
> Don't ask to be spoon-fed. Google is Your Friend, libraries
> are more so, and a good formal education is best of all.
>
And furthermoe what books would be good? For this specific topic?
Because
I want to learn something here TOO, even though I don't accept
creationism.
mike3
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
>
> >Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> >happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> >insects)
>
> They're no "co-evolutionary".
>
> > with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> >used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> >feats.
>
> Don't ask to be spoon-fed. Google is Your Friend, libraries
> are more so, and a good formal education is best of all.
>
And if you are too poor to pay for FORMAL education, then what?
Oh, I forgot. Money is irrelevant.
mike3
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
>
> >Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> >happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> >insects)
>
> They're no "co-evolutionary".
>
> > with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> >used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> >feats.
>
> Don't ask to be spoon-fed. Google is Your Friend, libraries
> are more so, and a good formal education is best of all.
>
Furthermore, money concerns aside, in that you have to have a teacher
go and feed you the information.
mike3
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Gerard
>
> >Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> >happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> >insects)
>
> They're no "co-evolutionary".
>
> > with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> >used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> >feats.
>
> Don't ask to be spoon-fed. Google is Your Friend, libraries
> are more so, and a good formal education is best of all.
>
Also, is it because the spoon feeding would be too simplified
(according to the
dictionary I've got that's what "spoon feeding" information implies,
extreme
oversimplification) to be really useful?
Gerard
>
> - Show quoted text -
I didn't see any explanation, any demonstration, any elaboration on
any of the mechanisms attributed to natural evolution in your post
which answers the challenge. Aerodynamic development would've been an
end product probably achieved long before the Eden setting (the
development of animals over generations would've required plant
foods). To answer the second question, and perhaps all questions
regarding life's development, yes, the unfolding of information, the
directive for an intended set of end product lifeforms would've
consisted of sequential development, limbs to legs, limbs to wings,
narrow eyesight to keener eyesight etc. But faith requires little
demonstrable evidence in terms of scientific info. Faith consists of
divine moral response and spiritual responsiveness. Not science. Only
nitpickers rely on science and its limited discerning criteria that it
gives us. That said, let's answer the challenge.
John Harshman
> I didn't see any explanation, any demonstration, any elaboration on
> any of the mechanisms attributed to natural evolution in your post
> which answers the challenge. Aerodynamic development would've been an
> end product probably achieved long before the Eden setting (the
> development of animals over generations would've required plant
> foods).
There is no "Eden setting". Eden is a mythical place. By "aerodynamic
development" do you mean the evolution of flight? If so, please speak
English. The first animals to fly were insects, apparently in the
Mississippian.
> To answer the second question, and perhaps all questions
> regarding life's development, yes, the unfolding of information, the
> directive for an intended set of end product lifeforms would've
> consisted of sequential development, limbs to legs, limbs to wings,
> narrow eyesight to keener eyesight etc. But faith requires little
> demonstrable evidence in terms of scientific info. Faith consists of
> divine moral response and spiritual responsiveness. Not science. Only
> nitpickers rely on science and its limited discerning criteria that it
> gives us.
Then why bother asking?
> That said, let's answer the challenge.
If it's adaptive explanations you're looking for (again, please speak
English), try this:
Frank J
How many years before the "Eden setting"? And how many years ago do
you think that was? You should be able to provide at least order-of-
magnitude best guesses.
> To answer the second question, and perhaps all questions
> regarding life's development, yes, the unfolding of information, the
> directive for an intended set of end product lifeforms would've
> consisted of sequential development, limbs to legs, limbs to wings,
> narrow eyesight to keener eyesight etc. But faith requires little
> demonstrable evidence in terms of scientific info. Faith consists of
> divine moral response and spiritual responsiveness. Not science. Only
> nitpickers rely on science and its limited discerning criteria that it
> gives us.
That's an odd way to answer the 2nd question. Just to be clear, are
you saying that you agree that in-vivo changes rather than new origin-
of-life events, is the better explanation?
> That said, let's answer the challenge.
I doubt that anything but a nanosecond-by-nanosecond account of every
atom on Earth over the past 4.5 billion years will answer the question
to your satisfaction, so why bother? My questions instead can be
satisfied with very simple answers that many anti-evolutionists are
quite willing to supply. Though not nearly as many as a few decades
ago. Why one might think that they are steadily losing "faith" in
their (mutually contradictory) alternate explanations.
wf3h
> nitpickers rely on science and its limited discerning criteria that it
>
> - Show quoted text -
and yet creationists rely on science for virtually every facet of
their modern lives...all the while telling us how much they hate it.
they seem to think that, when we still shit in our drinking water, we
had religion and that made everything OK.
Mark Isaak
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
No, you first.
Most animals live in trees or in other positions where they have a good
chance on falling down every so often. Being unable to control the fall
can be bad. It could mean that you land in an unfavorable microhabitat,
or that a passing bird can find you quickly and eat you, or that you
break your neck. So, given the frequency with which animals fall down,
and the disadvantages of not being aerodynamic, can you explain to me how
it might be possible that aerodynamics might *not* have evolved?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Mike Painter
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:13:07 -0800, Gerard wrote:
>
>> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
>> feats.
>
> No, you first.
>
> Most animals live in trees or in other positions where they have a
> good chance on falling down every so often. Being unable to control
> the fall can be bad. It could mean that you land in an unfavorable
> microhabitat, or that a passing bird can find you quickly and eat
> you, or that you break your neck. So, given the frequency with which
> animals fall down, and the disadvantages of not being aerodynamic,
> can you explain to me how it might be possible that aerodynamics
> might *not* have evolved?
If the ground was rubber?
(I am picturing the Socratic dialog in the witch scene in "Search for the
Holy Grail")
Bob T.
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:13:07 -0800, Gerard wrote:
> > Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> > happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> > insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> > used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> > feats.
>
> No, you first.
>
> Most animals live in trees or in other positions where they have a good
> chance on falling down every so often. Being unable to control the fall
> can be bad. It could mean that you land in an unfavorable microhabitat,
> or that a passing bird can find you quickly and eat you, or that you
> break your neck. So, given the frequency with which animals fall down,
> and the disadvantages of not being aerodynamic, can you explain to me how
> it might be possible that aerodynamics might *not* have evolved?
It's a well-known fact that God loves cats. That's why he turns them
right-side up when they fall. If you watch a slow-motion film of a
cat falling, you can practically see God arranging the cat's limbs
aerodynamically.
- Bob T.
Lee Jay
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
I find it interesting that so many creationist arguments are based
around the idea that they can't understand something, and so that
something must be "unfathomable" (or some similar word) and therefore
they believe it could not occur. It's a logical fallacy, like most
creationist "arguments".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
"The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from
personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an
assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or
unbelievable, the premise can be assumed to be false, or alternatively
that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead."
By using a logical fallacy to support your position, you actually
demonstrate your ignorance and the emptiness of your actual position.
Lee Jay
John Wilkins
> On Nov 11, 5:10 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:13:07 -0800, Gerard wrote:
> > > Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> > > happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> > > insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> > > used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> > > feats.
> >
> > No, you first.
> >
> > Most animals live in trees or in other positions where they have a good
> > chance on falling down every so often. Being unable to control the fall
> > can be bad. It could mean that you land in an unfavorable microhabitat,
> > or that a passing bird can find you quickly and eat you, or that you
> > break your neck. So, given the frequency with which animals fall down,
> > and the disadvantages of not being aerodynamic, can you explain to me how
> > it might be possible that aerodynamics might *not* have evolved?
>
> It's a well-known fact that God loves cats. That's why he turns them
> right-side up when they fall. If you watch a slow-motion film of a
> cat falling, you can practically see God arranging the cat's limbs
> aerodynamically.
>
Then I own the Devil's Cat, because when it falls it lands with a loud
thump in whatever oritentation it happened to be in as it fell.
Of course, it is also amazingly stupid and fat.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
David Canzi
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Nov 10, 10:13 pm, Bodega
>>
>> Hey, pal, give it up. It's not working. "Evolutionists" have provided
>> millions of details. If you have an alternative
>> theory, it's up to *you* to provide the details of who, what, when,
>> where and how. If you expect to win the argument, better hop to it.
>>
>> Hey, come on. You can start by explaining how so many water critters
>> died in ... a flood?
>
>First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
>evolution.
>
How did you decide which evidence not to use?
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Lee Jay
> Bob T. <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 5:10 pm, Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:13:07 -0800, Gerard wrote:
> > > > Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> > > > happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> > > > insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
> > > > used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> > > > feats.
>
> > > No, you first.
>
> > > Most animals live in trees or in other positions where they have a good
> > > chance on falling down every so often. Being unable to control the fall
> > > can be bad. It could mean that you land in an unfavorable microhabitat,
> > > or that a passing bird can find you quickly and eat you, or that you
> > > break your neck. So, given the frequency with which animals fall down,
> > > and the disadvantages of not being aerodynamic, can you explain to me how
> > > it might be possible that aerodynamics might *not* have evolved?
>
> > It's a well-known fact that God loves cats. That's why he turns them
> > right-side up when they fall. If you watch a slow-motion film of a
> > cat falling, you can practically see God arranging the cat's limbs
> > aerodynamically.
>
> Then I own the Devil's Cat, because when it falls it lands with a loud
> thump in whatever oritentation it happened to be in as it fell.
>
> Of course, it is also amazingly stupid and fat.
That's called a basketball.
Lee Jay
Gerard
> Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote in news:19c4eedb-b630-43be-8de1-
> c94861a10...@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
>
> > First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
> > evolution.
>
> read them.
>
> Which doesn't make you particularly dumb, or evolution a sneaky hidden-
> by-conspiracies subject. Most things in life are like that.
>
> Unless you do it for a living, you probably can't describe the exact
> workings of your television or your computer in any detail. You use them
> anyway. You live in a state and/or country with thousands of pages of
> laws and legal interpretations you've never read; you get by pretty well.
> If you get a serious illness (say, arthritis or cancer) you aren't going
> to understand what's happening to you and which treatments are likely to
> work on the same level that your doctor will.
>
> As an average person, you may not look at the diversity of life and see
> how evolutionary processes cause it. But as an average person, you can't
> look at the image on your t.v. screen and see how integrated circuits
> and/or cathode ray tubes cause THAT, either.
>
> You don't assume the electrical engineers are lying about t.v., that it's
> caused by direct miracles from God instead of electronics. Why do you
> assume the biologists are lying?
Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
energy. There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory" which
is harnassed to work in biology. If that were possible, we'd be seeing
new species develop in a laboratory. However, before using viruses or
bacterias as faulty examples, you must understand, there must be
distinctions made in certain specimens because of the theological
monopoly placed on some potential specimens used. When that rule is
applied, there is no demonstrable or identifiable mechanism in
evolution. If you want me to elaborate I will. But the challenge is on
every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a faith based religion. Get to
work. Point me to a book or manual which clearly demonstrates
photographically and journalistically, the identifiable players which
work to bring about random mutations, gene regulation, structural
formations and the like.
Gerard
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps you can explain why creationists insist that their particular
interpretation of these accounts is literally true, and that it is
supported by science and should be taught as science in science
classes?
The fact that they are unable to do so without distortion,
misrepresentation and outright falsehoods suggests that they are not
exactly reliable in their claims.>
Science classes should contain demonstrable science. That means that
evolution teachings must be taken out of our schools. As LouAnn
alluded to, theres constructive science, science which is relevant and
then there's irrelevant philosophical abuse of science, which is
evolution theory. Until they can identify the cells at play, the
forces at work, the biological feedback mechanisms in hosts, until
they can show evolution of new structures over many generations, they
have nothing but a theory of origins. What practicality is there in
that nonsense?!
Stuart
> Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
> happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
> insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios,
I don't think you know what co-evolutionary means.
Flight has arisen in many lineages, independently, at different times.
Seems the evolution of flight wasn't that tough a trick.
As for mechanisms, a number of things have been proposed that lead to
the evolution of wings. So I don't know quite what you mean by
"elaboration on mechanical scenarios". This sounds like "not enough
elaboration to convince me", which frankly, does not concern me. The
only relevant question is, is it formulated in a testable scientific
theory?
You should peruse the talk.origins FAQ archive:
http://www.talkorigins.org/
the details,
> used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced, natural
> feats.
Randomly induced? Mutations are randomly induced. Natural selection is
not random.
>
> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on vaguely
> represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless),
Baseless? Hilarious. This creationist didn't get the memo.
natural
> selection (do the needs determine the means or vice versa? Prove it),
Whatever leads to differential reproductive success.
> genetic drift (can just as well represent the means for creative
> diversity)
You don't what "genetic drift" means.
>and migration ("be fruitful and fill the earth").
>
> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between what
> can be evidence for creation as apposed to that of natural phenomenom
> like evolution.
Nothing. Thats the problem. Evolution could be the process by which
God changes life on this planet. On the other hand there is no way to
test whether or not God is involved.
If you don't understand this challenge, then you
> probably don't understand what evolution represents and are
> unqualified to comply.
I understand the "challenge"
You neither understand science in general or evolution in particular.
Stuart
Stuart
Ignorance is bliss.
Stuart
Earle Jones
<2563262b-1512-4e43...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@aol.com> wrote:
*
Then where is the God of buttered bread, which, when dropped, **always**
lands with the butter side down?
earle
*
DJT
> On Nov 11, 10:09 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
.
>
> > You don't assume the electrical engineers are lying about t.v., that it's
> > caused by direct miracles from God instead of electronics. Why do you
> > assume the biologists are lying?
>
> Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
> energy.
EEs however are not scientists. Evolutionary scientists make use of
identifiable mechanism of evolutionary change.
> There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory" which
> is harnassed to work in biology.
The mechanism of evolutionary theory is variation and selection acting
on populations over generations.
> If that were possible, we'd be seeing
> new species develop in a laboratory.
News flash: Species have developed in labs, and in the wild, under
observation.
> However, before using viruses or
> bacterias as faulty examples, you must understand, there must be
> distinctions made in certain specimens because of the theological
> monopoly placed on some potential specimens used.
What "theological monopoly"? Viruses and bacteria are used because
they have very short generation times, which makes it much easier to
see changes in the populations.
> When that rule is
> applied, there is no demonstrable or identifiable mechanism in
> evolution.
The mechanism of evolution is well identified. It's variation and
selection.
> If you want me to elaborate I will.
Please do, as you seem very confused.
> But the challenge is on
> every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a faith based religion.
Faith based religion is irrelevant to scientific theories.
Evolution doesn't try to contradict religions, and by the same token,
isn't interested in protecting religious beliefs from scientific
findings.
> Get to
> work. Point me to a book or manual which clearly demonstrates
> photographically and journalistically, the identifiable players which
> work to bring about random mutations,
Why should others do your homework for you? Random mutations are
caused by a number of factors, incluidng radiation, chemcials, copy
mistakes, etc.
> gene regulation,
See:
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/P/Promoter.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_regulation
> structural
> formations and the like.
http://pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mayer/geneticreg.htm
DJT
Max
><snip>
> Find me anything which cannot be explained with information from the
> bible.
>
This should be good. Tell us what the bible has to say about the
double slit experiment.
><snip>
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 11, 11:14 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Perhaps you can explain why creationists insist that their particular
>
> interpretation of these accounts is literally true, and that it is
> supported by science and should be taught as science in science
> classes?
> The fact that they are unable to do so without distortion,
> misrepresentation and outright falsehoods suggests that they are not
> exactly reliable in their claims.>
>
> Science classes should contain demonstrable science. That means that
> evolution teachings must be taken out of our schools.
This is a complete non-sequitur. In what way is evolution not
"demonstrable science"?
> As LouAnn
> alluded to, theres constructive science, science which is relevant and
> then there's irrelevant philosophical abuse of science, which is
> evolution theory.
...and this is a lie taken straight from creationist sources, and an
example of what I was referring to when I said that such sources are
unreliable.
According to any biologist on this planet not motivated by religious
dogma, evolutionary theory is central to their discipline.
What do you know about the science of biology that biologists don't?
> Until they can identify the cells at play,
...which they can...
> the
> forces at work,
...which they can ...
> the biological feedback mechanisms in hosts,
...which they can ...
> until
> they can show evolution of new structures over many generations,
..which they can ...
> they
> have nothing but a theory of origins.
..which is nonsense, and all of which is irrelevant to the validity of
evolutionary theory. Evolution is a phenomenon we can observe in
action in nature and replicate in the lab. Evolutionary theory is an
explanation for how evolution works. It is not a "theory of origins" -
whatever the hell you mean by that.
> What practicality is there in
> that nonsense?!
Advances in medicine and agriculture, gaining understanding of the
consequences of climate change, of how organisms interact in
ecosystems, the nature of mass extinctions, how diseases spread,
developing novel engineering techniques ...
How many more do you want?
Which is all irrelevant, of course. Science is not a branch of
industry, and the reason for carrying out scientific research is not
to make money for corporations. It's to find out about the universe
and how it functions. If there are benefits to industry, that's
incidental.
RF
Ilas
news:62f6d5ab-5306-4e15...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 10:09 am, Louann Miller <louan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You don't assume the electrical engineers are lying about t.v., that
>> it's caused by direct miracles from God instead of electronics. Why
>> do you assume the biologists are lying?
>
> Bleeeurggghhh
And to repeat Louann's question, which you somehow missed:
Ilas
wrote in
news:9a2a6744-1f05-4589...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 6:50 am, Nomen Publicus <zzas...@buffy.sighup.org.uk>
> wrote:
>> Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > Can somebody explain to me how they think aerodynamic development
>> > happened in thousands of co-evolutionary scenarios (seeds, birds,
>> > insects) with elaboration on the mechanical scenarios, the details,
>> > used to accomplish this unfathomable set of randomly induced,
>> > natural feats.
>>
>> True flying has evolved at least twice.
>
> At least four times:
> Insects
> Pterosaurs
> Birds
> Bats
And Nathan Petrelli.
Ilas
news:8odjh4118i9l5kgas...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:19:23 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins , Gerard
> <markge...@aol.com> in
>>First, there are no details mentioned in the mechanics attributed to
>>evolution.
>
> How many details do you want? I can provide you with thousands of
> pages, but that just scratches the surface of what we know, no less of
> what there is to know.
Thousands? Hell, no, that's not enough. And if you had millions, that
wouldn't be enough either. And if you had billions?...well, you get the
picture.
At the end of the day, he doesn't want to die, and his religion tells him
he doesn't have to, IF he does what he's told. That's a pretty powerful
reason to ignore reality.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>> You clearly have neither the educational foundation to understand, <snip>
> then he should GET it.
Let's face it, how likely is it that a morontheist heads out in search for
education?
When was the last time _you_ saw such a thing happening? -.-
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Stuart
What rot.
Scientists and Engineers routinely use "evolution" to solve thorny
optimization problems that bedevil traditional mathematical methods..
This is something I posted some time ago..
I've written brief bits about this subject before. The use of
stochastic hill climbing problems in solving systems of equations in a
more efficeint manner than traditional methods is fast becomming
commonplace in the sciences and engineering.
Stochastic hill climbing methods are a class of mathematical methods
which harness randomness to find solutions to equations. It's called
hill climbing in an analogy with Sewall Wrights concept of fitness
landscapes. Such landscapes have peaks, where organisms have much
greater fitness than organisms in the plains and valleys below. The
trick is getting up the peak. Darwin discovered the first such
algorithm. Its called Natural Selection or descent via modification.
As
Dan Dennett distilled it, its quite simple, move up the hill when you
can, don't move back down it. THe simplest method is the Monte Carlo
method. In the monte carlo method (5pts for anyone who can figure out
why its called that, -25 pts for anyone who can't) solutions are
chosen
at random, inserted into the equations and we compute a "cost"; a
measure of how well it satisfies the equations. You keep trying
randomly derived solutions (guesses) until you have a population of
solutions that satisfies your criteria for goodness of fit. Usually
this is a value of the cost which is chosen as a threshold. Below such
a value you keep the solutions, above you reject. Once you have a
population of *good* solutions you can then perform other sorts of
statistical analyses to learn more about the properties that the
hypothetical *ideal* solution has.
Genetic algorithms are more complex than the Monte-Carlo method.
Indeed, they are quite analogous to NS. You have a population of
solutions (sans organisms), you breed a new generation via
x-fertilization and then see how well these new solutions actually
satisy the equations. THose solutions which exceed your cost criteria
are *killed* off. With each generation you can lower your cost
threshold. This is quite like *selection*. Indeed these terms, pepper
the stochastic hill climbing method literature.
In February's Scientific American (2003), there is an article written
by engineers and computer scientists who used GA's to create novel
electronic circuit deisgns. They were able to duplicate or better 15
previously patented designs using GA's.
In the case of the most complicated task, designing a "cubic signal
generator", the GA evolved a design which out perfoms a recently
patented design that performs the same task. GA's don't think. They
have no cognitive ability. Yet this GA *designed* such a good circuit.
Its even more interesting than that. TO quote the authors, "The
evolved
circuit performs with better accuracy than the designed one, but how
it
functions is not understood. The evolved circuit is clearly more
complicated, but also contains redundant parts, such as the purple
transistor that contrbutes nothing to the functioning." (You'll have
to
see the article). (Page 58, Feb 2003 issue of Sci-Am)
So here is a mindless computer algorithm besting intelligent designers
with designs that contain sub-optimal or unneeded parts. How scary is
that?
How will the creationists and ID *theorists* respond?
1. Well the algorithm was designed by humans, therefore by the
transitive property of whatever, anything resulting from a GA is also
designed by humans.
Of course the fact that the authors still have no idea how the
circuit works will not deter creationists from using the above. How
one
designs something while not knowing how it works, even after it is
*designed* is a contradiction that will not bother creationists or ID
theorists.
2. Well so what if the circuit has an unneeded part. Perhaps in the
future they will find it does have a function.
While not stated in the article, it would be a simple matter for
them to remove that transistor and verify that the cost value and the
performance of the circuit remains unchanged.
3. Perhaps the SOL or some dieletric constants will change in the
future, at which point, unneeded parts will have a function.
LOL. But no doubt Bill Dembski and others will take that route.
4. Well its not irreducibly complex.
Sorry, Dr. Behe, you remove something besides the unneeded
transistor, and you no longer have a cubic signal generator. Of
course,
it is likely that transitor was used in a past generation, and is
fixed
in the *design* as a result of an historical contingency (RIP, SJG).
5. The circuit was originally perfect, but it was ruined after the
Fall.
Umm.. not unless the fall occurred a few months ago.
6. This project was rooted in naturalist assumptions. Therefore its
not
valid. Neener-Neener
No Comment.
7. All of the above.
Stuart
Ernest Major
<62f6d5ab-5306-4e15...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Gerard <markge...@aol.com> writes
>
>Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
>energy. There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory" which
>is harnassed to work in biology.
> If that were possible, we'd be seeing new species develop in a
>laboratory.
That a non-sequitur (a fallacy). It relies on additional, unsupported,
assumptions about timescale and frequency. However, for your
information, we do see new species develop in a laboratory.
> However, before using viruses or bacterias as faulty examples, you
>must understand, there must be distinctions made in certain specimens
>because of the theological monopoly placed on some potential specimens
>used. When that rule is applied, there is no demonstrable or
>identifiable mechanism in evolution. If you want me to elaborate I
>will. But the challenge is on every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a
>faith based religion. Get to work. Point me to a book or manual which
>clearly demonstrates photographically and journalistically, the
>identifiable players which work to bring about random mutations, gene
>regulation, structural formations and the like.
>
That's a silly request. It's like refusing to believe in nuclear energy
because you can't find a photograph of a nucleus undergoing fission.
--
alias Ernest Major
wf3h
>
> Science classes should contain demonstrable science. That means that
> evolution teachings must be taken out of our schools.
now THERE'S a contradiction
evolution is demonstrable both in the lab and in the world. seems your
goal is to give religion a veto over science
and that ain't gonna happen.
As LouAnn
> alluded to, theres constructive science, science which is relevant and
> then there's irrelevant philosophical abuse of science, which is
> evolution theory. Until they can identify the cells at play, the
> forces at work, the biological feedback mechanisms in hosts, until
> they can show evolution of new structures over many generations, they
> have nothing but a theory of origins. What practicality is there in
> that nonsense?!
anti- intellectual religious fanatics have always called science
'nonsense'. you need to read books instead of church bulletins
wf3h
>
> Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
> energy. There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory" which
> is harnassed to work in biology.
?? the fact that we can harness the process of electron transfer for
energy does not make 'electrical engineering' a science while biology
is not. that's not how science works
If that were possible, we'd be seeing
> new species develop in a laboratory. However, before using viruses or
> bacterias as faulty examples, you must understand, there must be
> distinctions made in certain specimens because of the theological
> monopoly placed on some potential specimens used.
?? what the hell is a 'theological monopoly'?
When that rule is
> applied, there is no demonstrable or identifiable mechanism in
> evolution. If you want me to elaborate I will. But the challenge is on
> every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a faith based religion. Get to
> work. Point me to a book or manual which clearly demonstrates
> photographically and journalistically, the identifiable players which
> work to bring about random mutations, gene regulation, structural
> formations and the like.- Hide quoted text -
>
chemistry is responsible for mutations. you seem not to understand how
chemistry works...bond energies, etc. go back and do some reading. you
creationists seem averse to even the most basic ideas.
(M)-adman
How is that a silly request? The fact is you really do not have an
identifiable mechanism in "evolutionary theory" like you do with fission. If
you did you would be able to explain it to the general public in a way they
could understand it and accept it, just as you can explain how a CRT works
or how any other electrical device works.
Why can't evolution be explained to the public in an understandable clear
manor? Because you have no identifiable mechanism to show. Evolution cannot
state the origins of evolving life either. So how does evolution know for
sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified? AFAIK
nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin. Do we know
the origin of nuclear fission?
Now, to add insult to injury, whenever evolution is questioned the pat
answers are always the same. With the following two answers being the most
popular and the most absurd:
1) YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any questions
you present are just dumb.
2) Every fossil is a transitional.
So, supposedly everything involving evolution is evidence, but nothing can
be shown as a clear chain of events that proves to the layman evolution
happens. How convenient eh? And if evolution is questioned, well, one is
told
"That's a silly request" or "That is a stupid question". Because apparently
the secrets of evolution are so sophisticated that most of us are just too
dumb to understand. Like a private club with it's own bi-laws and belief
system, evolution refuses to give up it's secrets.
To sum it up, the theory of evolution cannot show a clear example to the
public of the process that evolution uses to go from species (a) to species
(b)(c)(d)(e) because everything is evidence but the public is just too dumb
to understand.
Are you seeing the tress behind that forest yet?
--
This has been another:
"helping the evolutionist' to understand" moment, with:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
·.¸Adman¸.·
^^^^^^^^^^^
(M)-adman
> On Nov 11, 9:13 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
>> wf3h wrote:
>>> On Nov 10, 9:13 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on
>>>> vaguely represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless)
>>
>>> base one's case arguing against what is seen in nature?
>>
>>>> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between
>>>> what can be evidence for creation
>>
>>> easter bunny'?
>>
>> Life is the evidence.
>>
>> --
>
> a non-reply if there ever was one. creationists seem to think their
> argument is:
>
> 1. i said it
> 2. therefore it's true
> 3. no evidence is needed
Well, what explanation does evolution offer?
Evolution cannot show the public a clear chain of events of how evolution
happens. Evolution cannot even explain the origins of the life that it
claims evolves. So how does evolution even know the mechanism of evolution
has been identified without knowing the origin of life?
Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the universe
as evidence of creation.
Here is evolution's arguments:
1) evolution happens even though the fossil record does not support it.
2) All fossils are transitional but none of them show a clear chain of
events.(how convenient)
3) If you question evolution you are just dumb.
Lee Jay
> Why can't evolution be explained to the public in an understandable clear
> manor?
It can, and it has been, but many people like you plug their ears and
say "la la la la la" so they don't but their weak beliefs at risk.
> Because you have no identifiable mechanism to show.
Decent with modification and selection.
> Evolution cannot
> state the origins of evolving life either.
Neither can the theory of gravity. So what?
> So how does evolution know for
> sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified?
It doesn't. This is *science*, not *religion*. Only religions know
everything with absolute certainty. The fact that they generally
conflict with each other and are therefore demonstrably wrong doesn't
seem to bother the adherents.
> AFAIK
> nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin.
But you don't know much of anything, and the fact that you don't know
something doesn't make it unknowable.
> Now, to add insult to injury, whenever evolution is questioned the pat
> answers are always the same. With the following two answers being the most
> popular and the most absurd:
>
> 1) YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any questions
> you present are just dumb.
If you don't like it, quit demonstrating it.
> 2) Every fossil is a transitional.
Every step you take between your staring location and your destination
is a transitional step.
> So, supposedly everything involving evolution is evidence, but nothing can
> be shown as a clear chain of events that proves to the layman evolution
> happens.
Sure it can, and it does, but the "layman" tends to have too many
preconceived notions drummed into his head as a child to learn
anything new on the subject without feeling the threat of eternal
torture.
How convenient eh? And if evolution is questioned, well, one is
> told
> "That's a silly request" or "That is a stupid question". Because apparently
> the secrets of evolution are so sophisticated that most of us are just too
> dumb to understand.
Not dumb, just willfully ignorant. You WANT to stay unknowing, so you
do.
> Are you seeing the tress behind that forest yet?
I see them fine, and they are willful ignorance expressed by people
abused as children by their parents into believing nonsense under
threat of eternal torture or worse.
Lee Jay
wf3h
> wf3h wrote:
> >
> > a non-reply if there ever was one. creationists seem to think their
> > argument is:
>
> > 1. i said it
> > 2. therefore it's true
> > 3. no evidence is needed
>
> Well, what explanation does evolution offer?
evolution offers the following:
1. a testable mechanism
2. mechanism that is supported by data
3. mechanism that makes predictions
>
> Evolution cannot show the public a clear chain of events of how evolution
> happens.
sure it does. i'm a member of the public. i'm a chemist, not an
evolutionary biologist. therefore your statement is wrong
Evolution cannot even explain the origins of the life that it
> claims evolves.
irrelevant. no theory in any science explains everything. saying that
a theory is wrong because it's incomplete is not how science is done
So how does evolution even know the mechanism of evolution
> has been identified without knowing the origin of life?
because evolution is about the DEVELOPMENT of life, NOT its origin.
this is like saying we chemists can't do chemistry because we work
with atoms, but didn't know their origin
that's a false dichotomy. and it's wrong.
>
> Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the universe
> as evidence of creation.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. the reason we dont
know about life in the universe is because our detection methods are
primitive. and how is this 'evidence of creation'?
>
> Here is evolution's arguments:
>
> 1) evolution happens even though the fossil record does not support it.
wrong. the fossil evidence clearly shows evidence of time dependent
development of features in organisms. the evidence is clear
> 2) All fossils are transitional but none of them show a clear chain of
> events.(how convenient)
meaningless. this is a rephrase of your first statement and it's wrong
> 3) If you question evolution you are just dumb
well THAT part is true. i can't help it that you theocon/taliban
christianists want to wreck science.
creationism was tried. it was wrong. it has no testable mechanism.
it's not science. it's religion
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Ernest Major wrote:
> > In message
> > Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> writes
>
> >> Electrical engineers make practical use of identifiable electrical
> >> energy. There is no identifiable mechanism in "evolution theory"
> >> which is harnassed to work in biology.
>
> >> If that were possible, we'd be seeing new species develop in a
> >> laboratory.
>
> > That a non-sequitur (a fallacy). It relies on additional, unsupported,
> > assumptions about timescale and frequency. However, for your
> > information, we do see new species develop in a laboratory.
>
> >> However, before using viruses or bacterias as faulty examples, you
> >> must understand, there must be distinctions made in certain specimens
> >> because of the theological monopoly placed on some potential
> >> specimens used. When that rule is applied, there is no demonstrable
> >> or identifiable mechanism in evolution. If you want me to elaborate I
> >> will. But the challenge is on every evolutionists' shoulder, not on a
> >> faith based religion. Get to work. Point me to a book or manual which
> >> clearly demonstrates photographically and journalistically, the
> >> identifiable players which work to bring about random mutations, gene
> >> regulation, structural formations and the like.
>
> > That's a silly request. It's like refusing to believe in nuclear
> > energy because you can't find a photograph of a nucleus undergoing
> > fission.
>
> How is that a silly request?
Because it's like refusing to believe in nuclear energy because you
can't find a photograph of a nucleus undergoing fission. Can't you
read?
> The fact is you really do not have an
> identifiable mechanism in "evolutionary theory" like you do with fission.
The fact is, we do. It's natural selection acting on variation in
populations of organisms.
> If
> you did you would be able to explain it to the general public in a way they
> could understand it and accept it, just as you can explain how a CRT works
> or how any other electrical device works.
We can, and most reasonably intelligent people are able to understand
the basic concepts of evolution without too much effort.
>
> Why can't evolution be explained to the public in an understandable clear
> manor?
It can, and has been.
Darwin addressed "Origin of Species" to a popular readership and
explained his theory clearly (and from his manor at Down House).
Try reading Steve Jones book "Almost like a whale".
Try reading Steven Jay Gould's essays on the subject.
Try watching David Attenborough's documentaries on the subject.
> Because you have no identifiable mechanism to show.
What's wrong with natural selection acting on variation caused by
mutation?
> Evolution cannot
> state the origins of evolving life either.
So what?
> So how does evolution know for
> sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified?
We don't. That's why we carry on with research.
> AFAIK
> nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin.
Then you have very little knowledge. I can plot the trajectory of a
moving object with great accuracy if I know it's speed and trajectory.
I don't need to know how it was launched to be able to do that.
> Do we know
> the origin of nuclear fission?
It's a property of matter and energy.
>
> Now, to add insult to injury, whenever evolution is questioned the pat
> answers are always the same. With the following two answers being the most
> popular and the most absurd:
>
> 1) YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any questions
> you present are just dumb.
Who has given you that answer to any of the questions you have asked?
>
> 2) Every fossil is a transitional.
Who has given you that answer to any of the questions you have asked?
>
> So, supposedly everything involving evolution is evidence, but nothing can
> be shown as a clear chain of events that proves to the layman evolution
> happens. How convenient eh? And if evolution is questioned, well, one is
> told
> "That's a silly request"
I've repeated pointed people asking such questions at sources - such
as books, web sites, TV programmes - which explain evolution clearly
in lay terms.
Creationists such as yourself seem to have no interest whatsoever in
learning anything about the theory you seek to question.
> or "That is a stupid question". Because apparently the secrets of evolution are so sophisticated that most of us are just too
> dumb to understand.
It's more the case that creationists such as you are unwilling to
learn. You can only maintain your beliefs by remaining ignorant.
> Like a private club with it's own bi-laws and belief
> system, evolution refuses to give up it's secrets.
What about the numerous popular books on the subject which have been
published and are widely available?
In what way is trying to communicate scientific ideas in a popular
form "refusing to give up secrets"?
Go to any decent bookshop. You should find rows of books by authors
such as Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould, Steve Jones, Simon Conway
Morris, Matt Ridley, Chris McGowan and others which explain evolution
to the general public. Look through the documentary channels on your
TV. You will find programmes which explain evolution in simple terms.
Google on the internet, and you will find many sites which set out to
explain it.
How on earth can you claim that there is any sort of "private club"?
>
> To sum it up, the theory of evolution cannot show a clear example to the
> public of the process that evolution uses to go from species (a) to species
> (b)(c)(d)(e) because everything is evidence but the public is just too dumb
> to understand.
The case is not that the public is too dumb to understand, but that
creationists such as you are so determined not to learn anything about
a theory which challenges their dogma that they will simply refuse to
make any attempt to understand evolutionary theory, and will retreat
behind the misrepresentations, distortions and outright falsehoods of
the creationist sources on which you rely.
RF
wf3h
>
> Why can't evolution be explained to the public in an understandable clear
> manor? Because you have no identifiable mechanism to show. Evolution cannot
> state the origins of evolving life either.
evolution is not about the origin of life. sorry.
So how does evolution know for
> sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified? AFAIK
> nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin. Do we know
> the origin of nuclear fission?
this wrecks your argument. since we dont know the ORIGIN of fission
you seem to be saying fission doesn't happen.
the people of hiroshima would disagree
>
> So, supposedly everything involving evolution is evidence, but nothing can
> be shown as a clear chain of events that proves to the layman evolution
> happens.
why do you think science is a democracy? where did you get THAT
notion?
>
> To sum it up, the theory of evolution cannot show a clear example to the
> public of the process that evolution uses to go from species (a) to species
sure it can. the examples abound. the horse...the whale...are merely 2
examples of demonstrated speciation in the fossil record.
>
> Are you seeing the tress behind that forest yet?
>
and for 2000 years the christianists tried 'god did it'.
they used to explain planetary motion. but that was wrong
they used it to explain development of diseases. that was wrong
they used it to explain earthquakes. that was wrong
now they say it's how species develop. and guess what? that is wrong
Cheezits
wrote:
>> 1) YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any
>> questi
> ons
>> you present are just dumb.
>
> Who has given you that answer to any of the questions you have asked?
<ROFL> Adman is the one who keeps telling people they are "too dumb" to
understand.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
chris thompson
> > In message
> > Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> writes
Now that's rather amusing. In fact, every semester I explain the
basics of evolution to General Biology classes, and the vast majority
of students agree it makes perfect sense. Many of them had it in high
school (were you asleep? Were you home-schooled?) and they understood
it then. My kid understood it before high school.
It really is very simple. You want a precis?
Evolution is a change in the genetic makeup up of a population. This
change can stay within that population (microevolution) or lead to
speciation (many biologists but not all call this macroevolution).
Five phenomena are generally credited as the causes of evolution:
1. Selection, either natural or artificial
2. Drift, the effect of small population sizes on genetic makeup
3. Nonrandom mating
4. Gene flow, either into or out of the population, and
5. Mutation, either point mutations or larger chromosomal mutations
like deletions and translocations.
Speciation comes in two flavors: anagenesis and cladogenesis.
Anagenesis occurs when the ancestral population disappears in the
process of speciation. Cladogenesis is the process of a new species
evolving from the parent species, and the two species, parent and
daughter, are contemporaneous for at least a short time. Most
biological diversity on the planet arose from cladogenesis.
Either of these processes can occur as allopatric speciation or
sympatric speciation (we'll leave off paripatric speciation for now-
Wilkins can tutor you on that).
Allopatric speciation is presumably the process by which most animal
species arose. It occurs when a population fragments. The two (or
more; we will assume two) populations are now subject to different
selection pressures, different mutations, different environments.
Natural selection and drift play roles here. Drift becomes especially
important if one of the populations is small- in that case you will
almost certainly not have the full range of genetic diversity in the
small population as you do in the large population. If that's the case
the two populations can diverge genetically much more rapidly. If
efficient reproductive isolating mechanisms evolve that prevent the
populations from interbreeding (we use the biological species concept
here) you have two new species. This process requires rather long
periods of isolation.
Sympatric speciation occurs much more rapidly. It is quite common in
plants. In plants it typically takes the form of allopolyploidy. Some
authors have estimated that up to 30-40% of extant plant species have
an allopolyploid event in their evolutionary history. A typical, well-
known and well-studied example is in cordgrass, _Spartina_ spp. In pre-
Columbian times there were distinct endemic species of _Spartina_ in
North America and Europe. _Spartina maritima was in western Europe and
_Spartina alterniflora_ was in North America (there are other species
of _Spartina_ but the pertinent events involve these species and their
ancestors). _S. alterniflora_ was introduced to Europe in the 1800's.
It interbred with _S. maritima_ and produced a sterile hybrid, labeled
_S. townsendii_. Although sterile, _S. townsendii_ like all plants is
capable of asexual reproduction, and it rapidly spread through
England, France and the Low Countries. But at some later time, yet
another species of _Spartina_ appeared. This was named _Spartina
anglica_ and it is an extremely aggressive species, displacing other
cordgrasses with a vengeance. It was soon realized that _S. anglica_
is a direct descendant of _S. townsendii_, but fertile. Chromosomal
analysis revealed that _S. anglica_ is a tetraploid of _S.
townsendii_. In other words, some _townsendii_ individual
spontaneously doubled it's chromosome number. As I said, this is
common in plants, but not in animals.
So there we have two documented speciation events in the space of a
single human's lifespan. Further genetic analysis has confirmed these
hypotheses, and the various _Spartina_ species (and others) have been
generated in laboratories in Europe. There is considerable interest in
these species since as I said some are very aggressive, and are
displacing native vegetation. On the plus side, the recent species are
desirable as they seem to do a better job stabilizing dunes and soil
in polders- not an inconsequential consideration in many parts of
Europe.
Now. If you have failed to understand this material, it is NOT the
fault of biologists or teachers.
> just as you can explain how a CRT works
> or how any other electrical device works.
Are you serious? Modern electronics is much more complex than
evolution.
> Why can't evolution be explained to the public in an understandable clear
> manor?
Because so few houses are understandable or clear...or maybe it's
because religious nut cases prevent teachers from doing so.
> Because you have no identifiable mechanism to show.
Five phenomena are generally credited as the causes of evolution:
1. Selection, either natural or artificial
2. Drift, the effect of small population sizes on genetic makeup
3. Nonrandom mating
4. Gene flow, either into or out of the population, and
5. Mutation, either point mutations or larger chromosomal mutations
like deletions and translocations.
> Evolution cannot
> state the origins of evolving life either.
Neither can your plumber. Luckily, evolutionary theory can still be
studied, just as your plumber can fix your toilet. In neither case is
explaining the origins of life their job.
> So how does evolution know for
> sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified?
Silly, silly strawman. Do we KNOW? Nope. Does that mean what we do
know is invalid? Nope.
> AFAIK
"As far as you know" is evidently measured in nanometers.
> nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin. Do we know
> the origin of nuclear fission?
Statements like that usually wind up taking a bite out of your ass
when you're not looking.
> Now, to add insult to injury, whenever evolution is questioned the pat
> answers are always the same. With the following two answers being the most
> popular and the most absurd:
>
> 1) YOU do not understand evolution, therefore you are dumb and any questions
> you present are just dumb.
Well, no, not quite. That you do NOT understand evolution is evident
from your posts. But 1(a) does not necessarily lead to 1(b). Some of
my students do not understand evolution and they ask excellent
questions.
>
> 2) Every fossil is a transitional.
Fossil-fixation is usually incurable. I'm sorry.
Humor aside, fossils are really cool, but they are not the best
evidence for evolution. Unfortunately for you, genetics IS a
significantly more technical field than classic evolutionary biology
(modern evolutionary biology IS largely genetics. They do genetics
when they're not showing off their fast cars and hot trophy wives on
Lifestyles of the Shamelessly Rich from Studying Evolution.)
> So, supposedly everything involving evolution is evidence, but nothing can
> be shown as a clear chain of events that proves to the layman evolution
> happens.
And how many times has it been explained to you that science does not
deal in proof? Repeating the same false statements is the reason
people think you're dumb. Or dishonest.
> How convenient eh? And if evolution is questioned, well, one is
> told
> "That's a silly request" or "That is a stupid question". Because apparently
> the secrets of evolution are so sophisticated that most of us are just too
> dumb to understand. Like a private club with it's own bi-laws and belief
> system, evolution refuses to give up it's secrets.
What's wrong with doing what everyone else has done, who wanted to
learn about evolution? Are you banned from public libraries? Have you
thought of going and sitting in a Barnes and Noble with a cup of
coffee and a book about evolution? You've had things explained to you
over and over again be people who are experts in their fields. The
fact that you're too lazy or too pigheaded to get off your bum to do
your part is a reflection on neither the people who've spent time
talking to you, nor on evolutionary theory in general.
> To sum it up, the theory of evolution cannot show a clear example to the
> public of the process that evolution uses to go from species (a) to species
> (b)(c)(d)(e) because everything is evidence but the public is just too dumb
> to understand.
Five phenomena are generally credited as the causes of evolution:
1. Selection, either natural or artificial
2. Drift, the effect of small population sizes on genetic makeup
3. Nonrandom mating
4. Gene flow, either into or out of the population, and
5. Mutation, either point mutations or larger chromosomal mutations
like deletions and translocations.
See how easy it is?
Chris
Ernest Major
<4ccfeb7b-5f55-475a...@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"richardal...@googlemail.com" <richardal...@googlemail.com>
writes
>> The fact is you really do not have an
>> identifiable mechanism in "evolutionary theory" like you do with fission.
>
>The fact is, we do. It's natural selection acting on variation in
>populations of organisms.
I suspect that the prior poster was asking for photographs of the
chemical and chromosomal processes that result in mutations, but the
prior poster's apparent command of the English language is comparable to
M-adman's, so it is hard to be sure.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ernest Major
<477b5b02-192d-45b7...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
>Either of these processes can occur as allopatric speciation or
>sympatric speciation (we'll leave off paripatric speciation for now-
>Wilkins can tutor you on that).
You seem to have conflated peripatric and parapatric speciation. I don't
recall ever seeing the term paripatric speciation, but it the apparent
meaning would be the opposite extreme of allopatric speciation to
peripatric speciation.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<427bf83a-3659-43c9...@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com>, Lee Jay
stated..."
>
>On Nov 12, 6:55=A0am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
[...snip...]
>> Evolution cannot
>> state the origins of evolving life either.
>
>Neither can the theory of gravity. So what?
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that evolution *cannot*
describe the origins of life. That's a very strong claim, that
it is *impossible* for evolution. But let's not get into that.
There is no known alternative description for the origins of
life, an alternative which is incompatible with evolution. There
is no creationist/intelligent design description for the origins
of life - or for anything else. If it is a deficiency of
evolutionary biology not to have an explanation for the first
life, then it is also a deficiency of creationism not to have
an explanation.
There are many legitimate investigations of life or other topics
which do not describe the origins of their subject matter.
The study of languages, including the history and changes to
languages, does not have a generally accepted description of the
origins of language. Everyone recognizes that French, Spanish,
and the other Romance languages are descendants of Latin; that
modern English is a descendant of Anglo-Saxon. Yet nobody knows
how human languages started. That is no reason to doubt that we
know quite a bit about language change.
The study of chemical reactions is not dependent upon our knowledge
of where the chemical elements came from. It happens to be that we
now know the origins of the elements, but not knowing where hydrogen
and oxygen came from was no impediment to knowing that water is
composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
The study of the orbits of the planets is not dependent upon our
knowledge of the origins of the planets and of the solar system.
For hundreds of years, we could study the behavior of the solar
system without knowing where it came from.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
richardal...@googlemail.com
> wf3h wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 9:13 am, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> >> wf3h wrote:
> >>> On Nov 10, 9:13 pm, Gerard <markgerard...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> The weak base or foundation of evolution theory is placed on
> >>>> vaguely represented mechanics such as random mutations (baseless)
>
> >>> since both evolution, and mutations...are observed, how does one
> >>> base one's case arguing against what is seen in nature?
>
> >>>> Somebody please give me an answer which differientiates between
> >>>> what can be evidence for creation
>
> >>> what is 'evidence for creation'? is this like 'evidence for the
> >>> easter bunny'?
>
> >> Life is the evidence.
>
> >> --
>
> > a non-reply if there ever was one. creationists seem to think their
> > argument is:
>
> > 1. i said it
> > 2. therefore it's true
> > 3. no evidence is needed
>
> Well, what explanation does evolution offer?
>
> Evolution cannot show the public a clear chain of events of how evolution
> happens.
Yes it can.
It's there in numerous popular and technical books, TV programmes, web
sites and even video games.
> Evolution cannot even explain the origins of the life that it
> claims evolves.
"Evolution" doesn't seek to explain the origin of life. That's
abiogenesis, which is different though related field.
> So how does evolution even know the mechanism of evolution
> has been identified without knowing the origin of life?
Why does one need to know the origin of something to understand its
mechanism?
By your argument, Newton's laws of motion were meaningless without a
knowledge of how planets are formed or the mechanism of gravity. Funny
thing, but creationists don't claim that gravity - which is a
phenomenon of nature just as evolution is a phenomenon of nature -
can't exist because we have not identified a mechanism for gravity.
But then, as you make abundantly clear with each of your posts,
presenting logically coherent arguments is not exactly your forte. You
are much more adept at producing infantile scatology.
RF
chris thompson
> In message
> <477b5b02-192d-45b7-a792-540b5b975...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> writes
>
> >Either of these processes can occur as allopatric speciation or
> >sympatric speciation (we'll leave off paripatric speciation for now-
> >Wilkins can tutor you on that).
>
> You seem to have conflated peripatric and parapatric speciation. I don't
> recall ever seeing the term paripatric speciation, but it the apparent
> meaning would be the opposite extreme of allopatric speciation to
> peripatric speciation.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapatric_speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatric_speciation
I am not sure how valid the distinctions really are.
Chris
Augray
wrote in <vpBSk.64425$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
[snip]
>Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the universe
>as evidence of creation.
How do you know that it's not found anywhere else?
[snip]
Ernest Major
<aug...@sympatico.ca> writes
rest of the universe, and only create life on Earth?
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07...@4ax.com>, Augray stated..."
Well, if it is found anywhere else, that would be evidence
for creation.
Anything at all - or its opposite - is evidence for creation.
John Harshman
If I recall, it was for signs and seasons. It's all about us.
Ilas
news:hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07...@4ax.com:
I suspect he means life hasn't been found, and I'm guessing he means that
therefore there is no other life. But if we brought the universe down to
the size of the Earth, we've barely even started exploring the room we're
sitting in, never mind the house that room is in, the street the house is
on, the city the street is in, etc, etc. It would be like saying "ah, I see
that cat is asleep on my lap. I am aware that the Earth is 24,000 miles in
diameter, and it is barely 10 inchs to my lap. However, from where I sit, I
see no signs of any other cats. Therefore there are no other cats".
The lack of comprehension of just how bloody enormous the Universe is
(understandably) very widespread.
Ilas
news:Xns9B54AD88...@195.188.240.200:
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote in
> news:hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:13:20 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote in <vpBSk.64425$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the
>>>universe as evidence of creation.
>>
>> How do you know that it's not found anywhere else?
>
> I suspect he means life hasn't been found, and I'm guessing he means
> that therefore there is no other life. But if we brought the universe
> down to the size of the Earth, we've barely even started exploring the
> room we're sitting in, never mind the house that room is in, the
> street the house is on, the city the street is in, etc, etc. It would
> be like saying "ah, I see that cat is asleep on my lap. I am aware
> that the Earth is 24,000 miles in diameter,
That's circumference. Unless it grew whilst I wasn't looking.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote innews:hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:13:20 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
> > wrote in <vpBSk.64425$De7.10...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the
> >>universe as evidence of creation.
>
> > How do you know that it's not found anywhere else?
>
> I suspect he means life hasn't been found, and I'm guessing he means that
> therefore there is no other life. But if we brought the universe down to
> the size of the Earth, we've barely even started exploring the room we're
> sitting in, never mind the house that room is in, the street the house is
> on, the city the street is in, etc, etc. It would be like saying "ah, I see
> that cat is asleep on my lap. I am aware that the Earth is 24,000 miles in
> diameter, and it is barely 10 inchs to my lap. However, from where I sit, I
> see no signs of any other cats. Therefore there are no other cats".
>
> The lack of comprehension of just how bloody enormous the Universe is
> (understandably) very widespread.
One of the occasional snippets of information that stick in my mind
comes from a documentary on the Hubble telescope. They selected an
uninteresting patch of sky, and took very long exposures over a period
of several weeks to gather all the light they could. From some of the
galaxies they detected, that was one photon per week. The patch of sky
they studied is the size of a grain of sand held at arms length. They
found over 3000 galaxies.
I think you are greatly underestimating the size of the universe with
your analogy.
The universe is of the order of 10exp19 times greater in diameter than
the earth.
If it was the size of the earth, the earth in that reduced universe
would have a diameter of the order of 10exp-15 meters: i.e. it would
be the size of an *atom*.
The idea that the inhabitants of something so insignificant in the
scale of things are central to the meaning of the universe is so
ridiculous that it beggars belief.
Science teaches us humility.
Creationism teaches ignorance and arrogance.
David Canzi
\(M\)-adman <gr...@hotmail.ed> wrote:
> Evolution cannot
>state the origins of evolving life either. So how does evolution know for
>sure all of the identifiable mechanisms involved have been identified? AFAIK
>nothing can be explained accurately without knowing the origin.
Would you deny the results of a murder investigation if the
investigators couldn't tell you where the lead was mined that
the bullet was made from?
You are inventing new rules of logic and then requiring only
*one* *specific* part of the totality of all human knowledge to
meet them.
--
David Canzi | Life is too short to point out every mistake. |
Ilas
wrote in
news:65757235-1dba-4ecf...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 5:03 pm, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
>> Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>> innews:hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07l8isjgk7gaqrkd
> k...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:13:20 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <g...@hotmail.ed>
>> > wrote in <vpBSk.64425$De7.10...@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
>>
>> > [snip]
>>
>> >>Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the
>> >>universe as evidence of creation.
>>
>> > How do you know that it's not found anywhere else?
>>
>> I suspect he means life hasn't been found, and I'm guessing he means
>> that therefore there is no other life. But if we brought the universe
>> down to the size of the Earth, we've barely even started exploring
>> the room we're sitting in, never mind the house that room is in, the
>> street the house is on, the city the street is in, etc, etc. It would
>> be like saying "ah, I s
> ee
>> that cat is asleep on my lap. I am aware that the Earth is 24,000
>> miles i
> n
>> diameter, and it is barely 10 inchs to my lap. However, from where I
>> sit,
> I
>> see no signs of any other cats. Therefore there are no other cats".
> I think you are greatly underestimating the size of the universe with
> your analogy.
Oh, I realise that. We haven't even managed to clearly see what's a
couple of centimetres away from our left hand. But that wouldn't have
worked so well, what with the cat and all.
> The idea that the inhabitants of something so insignificant in the
> scale of things are central to the meaning of the universe is so
> ridiculous that it beggars belief.
Indeed. There are of the order of 22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars
that we know of (150 billion galaxies of 150 billion stars). The
arrogance of anyone who tries to comprehend that, and then still assumes
we are the *reason* for the Universe is utterly beyond me.
(M)-adman
Out of all this that you have posted, but i do not see a shred of physical
evidence for evolution. I see nothing offered that shows a clear chain of
events and the identifiable mechanism for such a chain.
What i DO see is a list of speculations based on old bones and the
observation of old bones. Observations do not wash. Because observations can
be wrong. The outward appearance of a fossil does not repersent the
biological aspects of the creature. So evolution is not supported in the
fossil record as Darwin said was necessary for his theories to be true.
The Arician and Asian elephants are proof of that observations can be wrong.
You have failed to prove change in the genetic makeup up of a population
even at the basic of levels. How is man different today then he was 10,000
years ago? None at all.
Moral to this story? Other disciplines of science do not have the problems
evolution has explaining themselves.
(M)-adman
(M)-adman
I bet you have a favorite place in your house.
(M)-adman
> "On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:18:26 -0500, in article
> <hc0mh45ufdb0bgo07...@4ax.com>, Augray stated..."
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:13:20 -0600, "\(M\)-adman" <gr...@hotmail.ed>
>> wrote in <vpBSk.64425$De7....@bignews7.bellsouth.net> :
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Yet we can point to observable life not found anywhere else in the
>>> universe as evidence of creation.
>>
>> How do you know that it's not found anywhere else?
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>
> Well, if it is found anywhere else, that would be evidence
> for creation.
>
> Anything at all - or its opposite - is evidence for creation.
If another planet existed, or had existed with life as we know it I would
say there was no creator.
So far we have not found such ---and is highly unlikely we will.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> If another planet existed, or had existed with life as we know it I
> would say there was no creator.
Why? Must a creator be limited to just one planet?
(M)-adman
Then you believe a LIE.
The size of the universe is no guarantee for conditions of life as we know
it to exist anywhere else.
But let's assume you are correct and look at the other side of the coin.
Because the universe is so vast with 22,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars,
then life should be teeming throughout the universe based on shear numbers
alone. At those numbers, the odds are in favor for conditions that are
conducive to life being near to us as well as far away. Why? Because there
are 150 billion galaxies of 150 billion stars worth of chances.
Yet not even the smallest suggestion that life is out there.
So how can you be so arrogant as to make the assumption that because the
universe is so big there must be life elsewhere, yet, insist that life
elsewhere is so far away that we have not discovered it yet? With such a
large number of stars, there should be plenty of evidence of life elsewhere.
How can you comprehend that, and then still assume we are *NOT* the *reason*
for the Universe is utterly beyond me.
--
Ye Old One
Do not, whatever you do, bring the EEers back.
--
Bob.