Misconceptions
evolutionguru
because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
scientific data and/or scientific laws.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
rossum
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
>because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
>dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
>Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
>persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
>to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
>their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
>unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
>understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
>have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
>The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
>evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
>but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
>scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
>Evolution has never been observed.
False. Every time we see a bacterium evolving immunity to an
antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
the population of bacteria is still changing.
>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
False. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that simple chemicals can
combine to form more complex chemicals in prebiotic conditions.
>There are no transitional fossils.
False. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Morganucodon, Cerion
etc. are all transitionals.
>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>proceeds, by random chance.
False. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is
not a "random chance" process, far from it. The origin of life is a
different theory, called abiogenesis; that works mainly by chemistry
and chemistry is not a random process either.
>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory of
Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking better
than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum gravity.
rossum
evolutionguru
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), evolutionguru
>
>
>
>
>
> <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> >because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> >dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> >Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> >persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> >to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> >their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> >to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> >unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> >education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> >understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> >have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> >The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> >evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> >but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> >scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> >Evolution has never been observed.
>
> False. Every time we see a bacterium evolving immunity to an
> antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
> that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
> the population of bacteria is still changing.
I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
science.
> >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> False. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that simple chemicals can
> combine to form more complex chemicals in prebiotic conditions.
Wrong conclusion, I think you don't exactly know what for experiment
Miller-Urey's really is. The experiment actually provided compelling
evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal
quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always
were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure. In real life, nearly all
amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of
carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to
the cell.
And by the way Making the building blocks of life is easy amino acids
have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as
bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random
collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the
building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and
exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.
> >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> False. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Morganucodon, Cerion
> etc. are all transitionals.
Again the same ruminal so called "transitionals"
I recommend these links here, please read them...
http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp
>
> >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> False. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is
> not a "random chance" process, far from it. The origin of life is a
> different theory, called abiogenesis; that works mainly by chemistry
> and chemistry is not a random process either.
Here we find a classic game of semantics and subjective re-definition
of terms. On the one hand, “chance plays a large part,” yet natural
selection (now portrayed as if an inherently, non-accidental,
designed, deliberate, goal-oriented process) plays a “fundamental
role,” these two “opposites” somehow combining to make it all work
out, precisely according to theory?
here some recall of what respected evolutionary authorities have said
concerning natural selection:
“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if
speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed
as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant
role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M.
Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates
essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of
adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long
run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but
simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing
environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation."
Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept.
1978]
“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so
in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living
Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin
has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random
mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random
mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a
tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up,
Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
> >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
> the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
> can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory of
> Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking better
> than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum gravity.
Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation, changes in
the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a
creature?
> rossum- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
rossum
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), evolutionguru
>>
[snip]
>>
>> >Evolution has never been observed.
>>
>> False. Every time we see a bacterium evolving immunity to an
>> antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
>> that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
>> the population of bacteria is still changing.
>
>I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
>will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
>time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
>kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
>genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
>science.
The original bacteria were killed by the antibiotic. The later
bacteria were not killed by the antibiotic. To my mind that makes the
two types of bacteria "different". The genomes of the two types of
bacteria are different. To me that does indeed look like evolution.
Lenski's experiments are an excellent example of such.
>
>> >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> False. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that simple chemicals can
>> combine to form more complex chemicals in prebiotic conditions.
>
>Wrong conclusion, I think you don't exactly know what for experiment
>Miller-Urey's really is. The experiment actually provided compelling
>evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal
>quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always
>were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure.
You have missed my point. Miller-Urey shows an increase in complexity
from simple molecules to more complex molecules. According to the
creationist version of the SLoT such an increase in complexity is
forbidden. This single experiment on its own shows that the
creationist argument from the SLoT is false - natural processes can
increase complexity.
>In real life, nearly all
>amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of
>carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to
>the cell.
I am aware that the products of the Miller-Urey experiment are a
racemic mixture. This is a known problem which is currently being
worked on. Dr Blackmond's work has shown that a repeated
freezing/thawing cycle can change a racemic mixture to chiral - all
one way. See
http://stratingh.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2008/JAmChemSocNoorduin/2008JAmChemSocNoorduin.pdf
>And by the way Making the building blocks of life is easy amino acids
>have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as
>bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random
>collection of amino acids to make life.
So far we have exidence of the natural origin of these house bricks.
Where is the creationist evidence for the supernatural origin of any
house bricks? Show me one creationist experiment where God creates
even one single molecule of any amino acid. Science has the evidence,
creationism has nothing.
>> >There are no transitional fossils.
>>
>> False. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Morganucodon, Cerion
>> etc. are all transitionals.
>
>Again the same ruminal so called "transitionals"
>I recommend these links here, please read them...
>http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp
>http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
>http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevoletter.asp
Your links failed to deal with Morganucodon and Cerion. You did know
that we have more than one Cerion transitional, didn't you? See
Gould's paper on Cerion for the details. When you have dealt with
those I can supply you with more: Microraptor gui and Hesperornis are
just two.
>> >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>> >proceeds, by random chance.
>>
>> False. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is
>> not a "random chance" process, far from it. The origin of life is a
>> different theory, called abiogenesis; that works mainly by chemistry
>> and chemistry is not a random process either.
>
>Here we find a classic game of semantics and subjective re-definition
>of terms. On the one hand, “chance plays a large part,” yet natural
>selection (now portrayed as if an inherently, non-accidental,
>designed, deliberate, goal-oriented process) plays a “fundamental
>role,” these two “opposites” somehow combining to make it all work
>out, precisely according to theory?
>here some recall of what respected evolutionary authorities have said
>concerning natural selection:
>
>“If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if
>speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed
>as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant
>role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M.
>Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of
>Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
I counted two "if"s in the first line of that. How many did you see?
>
>“Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
>necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates
>essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of
>adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long
>run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but
>simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing
>environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation."
>Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept.
>1978]
>
>“Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
>to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
>toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so
>in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living
>Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
>
>“In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin
>has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random
>mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random
>mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a
>tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up,
>Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
Can you really find nothing more recent than 1978. Science has
advanced just a bit since then.
>
>> >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>>
>> Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
>> the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
>> can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory of
>> Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking better
>> than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum gravity.
>
>Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
>one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation, changes in
>the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a
>creature?
An example is not falsifiable, a theory is. I suggest that you read a
book called "On the Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin. In that
book you will find out how to falsify evolution:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which
could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight
modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one
species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species,
it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced
through natural selection.
- both from Chapter Six of Origins.
As to your question about increasing information in the genome I
suggest that you read the recent paper by Drs Dembski and Marks,
http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2009_ConservationOfInformationInSearch.pdf
That paper tells you that evolution is a process which _copies_
information from the environment into the genome. Hence the
information in the genome increases as more information is copied in
from the environment. For example an arctic environment contains the
information "white things are difficult to see against a snowy
background". This information is copied into the genomes of animals
living in that environemnt resulting in their having white fur.
rossum
TomS
<1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
evolutionguru stated..."
>
>A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
>because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
>dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
>Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
>persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
>to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
>to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
>education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
>understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
>have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
>The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
>evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
>but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
>scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
>Evolution has never been observed.
>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>There are no transitional fossils.
>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>proceeds, by random chance.
>
>
Interesting, isn't it, that these are *not even *claimed to be
propositions *in *favor *of creationism, intelligent design, or
any other supposed alternative to evolutionary biology.
They are wrong in so many ways, and even at that, they don't
take even the first step toward supporting creationism. That
first step being answering "What is the alternative to evolution?"
How many of these same points apply with just as much force against
creationism?
Has creationism ever been observed? What would it even look like,
if it were to be observed?
Does creationism violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know
that even the most intelligent of designers can't violate the 2nd
law of thermodynamics.
How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
it from "random chance"?
Has creationism ever been proved? Has it ever been given enough of
a positive, definite description so that we can even imagine what
a demonstration would look like?
--
---Tom S.
the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
the currant jelly.
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
Boikat
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Don't let the facts get in the way, right?
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part.
Never mind the actual research.
> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis.
Theories change with new data, or a more logical interpretation of the
data. That's the way science works. And even if some details or the
*theory* are changed, the actual phenomena still exists, dispite
*religious domgma based objections*.
> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally.
That's where you creationists come in.
> Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
They are free to question the ToE of scientific grounds all they
want. What you cretionist don't seem to understand is that
questioning the ToE, or any branch or theory in science, based upon
*religious grounds* is simply stupid.
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
I'll get my popcorn.....
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
False. It's an observed phenomena.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Your ignorance of the laws of Thermodynamics, noted. In case you
haven't noticed, there's this "thing" in he sky called "The Sun". The
Earth is not a closed system. Also, the 2LoTD does not specify a
*time* factor.
> There are no transitional fossils.
Flat out false. Archaeopteryx, Acanthostega,.......
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
False. First off, abiogenesis is not evolution, and s *only* concrned
with how life appeared on Earth. Second, after life appeared and
began, evolution occured simply due to replication errors and
environmental selection, and Third, it's not "random chance, by any
means, since chemical reactions are not "random", and neither is
natural selection. Note the word "selection".
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
However, that is true of all scientific theories. But that still
leaves the *fact* of evolution, as in the observed phenomena.
Boikat
Sapient Fridge
<1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>Evolution has never been observed.
Lie.
There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/toadevolution.html
http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lizard-evolution657.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/j-m/2572841.stm
>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Lie.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is not
a closed system.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
There is no violation of the 2nd law.
>There are no transitional fossils.
Lie.
Virtually every fossil found is a transitional fossil.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Here's a nice example of one:
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/7278.ars
>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>proceeds, by random chance.
Lie.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is
a subject called abiogenesis and we still don't know what happened.
Research is ongoing though.
>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
True. Nothing in science can be proven, science can only find evidence
to support theories or disprove them. All the evidence found so far
supports evolution, nothing supports the presence of a god.
Well, well. Four outright lies in a single post. And creationists
wonder why we think they are dishonest. Your subject line was well
chosen though.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Sapient Fridge
<c35a663d-6fab-43a7...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
>one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation, changes in
>the genecode that already exist)
Evolution is *always* by variation of a genome which already exists, so
your request appears to be a strawman construct.
Novel beneficial changes in genomes by random mutation have been
observed though. Here is an example:
http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdf
> or increase of information(DNA) in a
>creature?
http://www.umich.edu/~zhanglab/publications/2003/Zhang_2003_TIG_18_292.pdf
TomS
<me3kmcZ0...@spamsights.org>, Sapient Fridge stated..."
>
>In message
><1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Evolution has never been observed.
>
>Lie.
>
>There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
>
>http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdf
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
>http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/toadevolution.html
>http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lizard-evolution657.html
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/j-m/2572841.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
>
>>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
>Lie.
>
>The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
>energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
>called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is not
>a closed system.
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
>
>There is no violation of the 2nd law.
The 2lot applies to all systems.
But the creationist claim about the 2lot and evolution is based on
multiple misunderstandings, such as that entropy always increases
(as you point out, entropy can decrease in systems in which there
is a source of low-entropy energy). Or that entropy is particularly
relevant to the changes in genetics of populations.
>
>>There are no transitional fossils.
>
>Lie.
>
>Virtually every fossil found is a transitional fossil.
>
>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
>Here's a nice example of one:
>
>http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/7278.ars
>
>>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>>proceeds, by random chance.
>
>Lie.
>
>The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is
>a subject called abiogenesis and we still don't know what happened.
>Research is ongoing though.
>
>>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
>True. Nothing in science can be proven, science can only find evidence
>to support theories or disprove them. All the evidence found so far
>supports evolution, nothing supports the presence of a god.
Rather, creationism has not been specified to such a degree that one
can say what would count as evidence for (or, for that matter, against)
it.
>
>Well, well. Four outright lies in a single post. And creationists
>wonder why we think they are dishonest. Your subject line was well
>chosen though.
--
wf3h
But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis.
what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
(The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself, valid
and empirically supported?
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
all of the statements are false, of course; but creationism's real
success is that it's pushed by churches and believers are of a herd
mentality, unwilling to question their authoritarian leaders
>
wf3h
> On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > >Evolution has never been observed.
>
> > False. Every time we see a bacterium evolving immunity to an
> > antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
> > that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
> > the population of bacteria is still changing.
>
> I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
> will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
> time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
> kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
> genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
> science.
this is meaningless. you admit there is variation in gene pools yet
assert there's no 'new' information.
this is impossible. variation IS 'new' information. and creationists
never even had a clue that there WERE genes...so creationism is
useless
>
> > >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
creationists have never stated why evolution violates the SLOT. they
don't understand it, so handwave it as a talisman against science. of
course, again, creationism itself has no understanding of the concept
of thermodynamics.
>
> > False. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that simple chemicals can
> > combine to form more complex chemicals in prebiotic conditions.
>
> Wrong conclusion, I think you don't exactly know what for experiment
> Miller-Urey's really is. The experiment actually provided compelling
> evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal
> quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always
> were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure.
wrong analysis. this is a matter of kinetics as well as thermo...and
kinetics is ANOTHER area of science creationists dont understand. they
don't understand how molecules interact. hell, creationism doesn't
even accept the existence of molecules, explaining chemistry instead
by invoking demons and devils
in addition, this a god of the gaps argument. this is about the ORIGIN
of life, not its evolution.
> And by the way Making the building blocks of life is easy amino acids
> have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as
> bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random
> collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the
> building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and
> exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.
much more relevant is the evolution of RNA. and recent experiments
have discovered how RNA can develop in natural products...a crucial
discovery in the development of life
and another failure for creationism
>
> > >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> > False. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Morganucodon, Cerion
> > etc. are all transitionals.
>
> Again the same ruminal so called "transitionals"
creationist websites aren't science websites. they are church
ministries, so necessarily are biased against science.
>
>
> > >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> > >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> > False. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is
> > not a "random chance" process, far from it. The origin of life is a
> > different theory, called abiogenesis; that works mainly by chemistry
> > and chemistry is not a random process either.
>
> Here we find a classic game of semantics and subjective re-definition
> of terms. On the one hand, “chance plays a large part,” yet natural
> selection (now portrayed as if an inherently, non-accidental,
> designed, deliberate, goal-oriented process) plays a “fundamental
> role,” these two “opposites” somehow combining to make it all work
> out, precisely according to theory?
obviously the creationist doesn't understand science. he doesn't
understand the role of chance in mutations. mutations happened. they
can be observed and measured
creationism can neither explain, nor test, how phenotypical variation
happens. to creationists it's all a matter of evil spirits, ghosts and
other supernatural causes. unfortunately these have NEVER explained
ANYTHING in nature; they have been used to explain earthquakes,
plagues, floods, etc. and they've always been wrong
so creationism is demonstrably false.
> here some recall of what respected evolutionary authorities have said
> concerning natural selection:
>
> “If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if
> speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed
> as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant
> role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M.
> Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
nicely quoted out of context. and a distortion of
language...creationism leads to distortions of language as
creationists gyrate, trying to avoid the conclusions of science
stanley does not say there is NOT an element of chance in evolution.
he says if chance is THE driving factor then selection is not.
the creationist, of course, has poor language skills so doesn't
understand
historian dan diner of hebrew university, has found that hamas
terrorists and other islamist fundamentalists, have poor language
skill because their fundamenatlist religious ideology does not enable
them to understand modern concepts....the same applies to
creationists..
>
> “Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
> necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates
> essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of
> adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long
> run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but
> simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing
> environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation."
> Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept.
> 1978]
no mention at all of chance in this quote. again a creationist
language problem
>
> “Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
> to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
> toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so
> in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living
> Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
no mention at all of chance. so the creationist, again, demonstrates
poor language skills
>
> “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin
> has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random
> mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random
> mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a
> tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up,
> Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
koestler was a political theorist, not an evolutionary biologist.
>
> > >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> > Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
> > the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
> > can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory of
> > Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking better
> > than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum gravity.
>
> Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
> one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation, changes in
> the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a
> creature?
more poor language skills...reading creationism is like reading the
old 'pravda' communist newspaper...distortions abound in both
what's the difference between 'variation' and 'mutation?' the
creationist can not explain. but this is linked to creationism's
inability to understand how organisms vary, and the source of that
variation. where modern day science sees chemistry, the creationist
sees demons and supernatural causes
if the creationist can point to ONE observed example of a demon, let
him do so. science, of course, can point to millions of examples of
chemistry in action...one example is the genetic code
it's not demon based like creationists say it is.
>
>
>
> > rossum- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IAAH
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
Wrong.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Exceedingly wrong.
> There are no transitional fossils.
Absolutely wrong.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
Incredibly wrong.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
The only think you demonstrate with that last
sentence is that you are arguing against something
you simply have no understanding of.
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
chris thompson
So then, please be specific about what you would accept as proof of
macroevolution. Note that the word "kind" is meaningless, and you
should not use it in this discussion. Unless, that is, you are willing
to provide a usable definition of kind.
"New and meaningful genetic content", by the way, is seen with every
non-neutral mutation. Are you claiming something different?
Chris
snip
Louann Miller
8713-004...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Lots of fields are like that. Tell a group of auto mechanics about your
engine that runs on pure water, and you get assertive dogma and dismissive
ridicule. Just because they CAN make a car run on petrochemicals while you
can't make a car run on water, they seem to feel they automatically win the
argument.
Louann Miller
news:me3kmcZ0...@spamsights.org:
> In message
> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>>Evolution has never been observed.
>
> Lie.
I don't even think this guy rises to the level of lie. To lie he'd have
to know what the right answer was and choose to say something else. He's
just vaguely spouting stuff from church or Jack Chick that sounds good to
him.
Dude, at least read THIS much advice before you try to play with the big
kids.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-
use#java_man
AIG has prettied up this page since the last time I visited it, BTW.
Although I notice that their explanation of why creationists shouldn't
use particular arguments continues to omit "we know that these particular
arguments are deceitful, and lying is wrong."
Frank J
Greetings newcomer, if you are indeed one.
You seem to have problems with evolution. I have heard them all
before, but what I haven't read yet is what you think happened instead
that lacks all these "problems."
So please describe your alternative, however tentative, in detail,
*without* reference to any problems you have with evolution. Start
will how many years ago you think the first life appeared on earth,
and whether humans share common ancestors with other species. Note
that an agreement with evolution on those two questions does not
necessarily imply that you accept the Darwinian mechanism, as Michael
Behe exemplifies.
TomS
<NdGdnX0N2eASQmvX...@giganews.com>, Louann Miller stated..."
Nice analogy.
But the parallel is not quite so favorable to the creationists.
Rather, try telling the auto mechanics that your car doesn't run on
gasoline, and when they ask what it does run on, tell them that the
car is intelligently designed so that it doesn't need gasoline. Go on
and on about how gasoline isn't needed, how intelligent design can do
anything.
Eventually, the mechanics will get bored with asking you about
how your car is supposed to operate.
Augray
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<c35a663d-6fab-43a7...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>http://www.trueorigin.org/birdevo.asp
There are numerous problems with that article, so it's hard to know
where to start. For instance, the claim that
Caudipteryx's middle finger would prevent the hand from being
used as a grasping organ.
has been shown to be false (Gishlick 2001). And because Camp last
updated his article in 2000, it's severely out of date. For instance,
he states that "...no dromaeosaurid has been found with any evidence
of feathers", but in the years since, some have (Norell et al. 2002;
Xu et al. 2003; Turner et al. 2007)
Another example of how the article is outdated is the assertion that
"...it is not at all clear that even the later therizinosaurs should
be included in Coelurosauria." This has been put to rest by the
discovery of Falcarius, a primitive therizinosaur (Kirkland et al.
2005) which shows that therizinosaurs are coelurosaurs.
Even the purported problem of timing has been shown to be false by the
recent discoveries of Anchiornis (Xu et al. 2009; Hu et al. 2009) and
Epidexipteryx (Zhang et al. 2008).
REFERENCES
Gishlick, A. D. 2001. The function of the manus and forelimb of
_Deinonychus antirrhopus_ and its importance for the origin of avian
flight. In "New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of
Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H.
Ostrom February 13-14, 1999 New Haven, Connecticut", edited by J.
Gauthier & L. F. Gall, pp. 301-318. New Haven: Peabody Museum of
Natural History, Yale University.
Hu D., Hou L., Zhang L., & Xu X. 2009. A pre-_Archaeopteryx_
troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus.
Nature 461:640-643.
Kirkland, J. I., L. E. Zanno, S. D. Sampson, J. M. Clark, & D. D.
DeBlieux. 2005. A primitive therizinosauroid dinosaur
from the Early Cretaceous of Utah. Nature 435:84-87.
Norell, M., Ji Q., Gao K.-Q., Yuan C.-X., Zhao Y., & Wang L. 2002.
'Modern' feathers on a non-avian dinosaur. Nature 416:36-37.
Turner, A. H., P. J. Makovicky, & M. A. Norell. 2007. Feather Quill
Knobs in the Dinosaur _Velociraptor_. Science 317:1721.
Xu X., Zhao Q., M. Norell, C. Sullivan, D. Hone, G. Erickson, Wang
X.-L., Han F., & Guo Y. 2009. A new feathered maniraptoran dinosaur
fossil that fills a morphological gap in avian origin. Chinese Science
Bulletin 54(3):430-435.
Xu X., Zhou Z.-H., Wang X.-L., Kuang X., Zhang F.-C. & Du X. 2003.
Four-winged dinosaurs from China. Nature 421:335-340.
Zhang F.-C., Zhou Z.-H., Xu X., Wang X.-L., & C. Sullivan. 2008. A
bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with
elongate ribbon-like feathers. Nature 455:1105-1108.
[snip]
richardal...@googlemail.com
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
FALSEHOOD #1
What rot! If "evolutionists" are persuasive it's because they know
their subject and the evidence which supports it.
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part.
FALSEHOOD #2
"Evolutionists" know that their views are supported by evidence, and
that no honest interpretation of the evidence can lead to any
conclusion other than that evolution over billions of years is the
process which has created the diversity of life on this planet.
> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis.
FALSEHOOD #3
Evolutionary theory is one of the most robust and exhaustively tested
theories in any branch of any science.
> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
FALSEHOOD #4
It is a common complaint amongst science teachers in universities that
students have a very limited knowledge of evolutionary theory and the
evidence which supports it. This is because the teaching of evolution
in science classes has been attacked by the utterly dishonest
arguments of creationists.
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory.
FALSEHOOD #5
They are nothing more than a regurgitation of creationist claptrap.
> Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success,
FALSEHOOD #6
They have all been exposed as utterly facile and dishonest over and
over again. It is only because creationists are deeply and
systematically dishonest that they persist in bringing them up.
> because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
FALSEHOOD #7
They are based on ignorance and religious dogma masquerading as
science.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
FALSEHOOD #8
It has been observed in action in populations of organisms in nature
and in the laboratory.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
FALSEHOOD #9
Complete and utter bunkum! This is such a discredited argument that
even AiG says creationists should not use it!
> There are no transitional fossils.
FALSEHOOD #10
Archaepteryx is a transitional fossil. It has characters of theropod
dinosaurs and birds. If this is *not* transitional, why not, and how
would we recognise a transitional fossil?
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
FALSEHOOD #11
Evolutionary theory is not about abiogenesis and
FALSEHOOD #12
Evolution does proceed by "random chance". The term "selection" in
"natural selection" is a rather obvious clue.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
MISREPRESENTATION #1
Science doesn't offer proof.
Are you trying to compete with Tony Pagano to see who can cram the
greatest number of outright falsehoods into one post?
RF
Kalkidas
b21b-3b8...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They
were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were
deliberately in force. The complexity of the experimental design, which
was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the
chemicals produced.
wf3h
>
> The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They
> were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were
> deliberately in force.
using the laws of nature. this is like saying that, since humans can
make lightening in a lab, god makes lightening and no laws of physics
are involved
The complexity of the experimental design, which
> was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the
> chemicals produced
meaningless statement. human brains can make lightening, too. that
does not prove intelligence is required to make lightening.
but creationists have a comic book view of science
Ron O
Why do you believe that the list above means what you think? Have you
been able to verify any of the junk? Really, why can't you do
something like that before claiming that these are the problems that
you think that they are?
What happened to scientific creationism? These are the same
obfuscationist arguments used by the failures that tried to foist
scientific creationism onto public school students decades ago. These
aren't even the arguments that they used to claim that they had
scientific support for their beliefs. These are just the junk that
they would throw out to sound sciency. Why was it necessary for them
to perpetrate the intelligent design bait and switch scam if these
arguments were at all valid?
Check out this list of arguments that creationist should not used put
out by the AIG.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use
The list changes from time to time, but several of your assertions
have made the list. The "evolution violates the second law" argument
was on the list at one time and the transitional fossil argument is on
the list. The "only a theory" bogus claptrap is still on the current
list. The list changes from time to time, probably because they don't
want it to get too long, but what does it tell you when even the guys
selling you this junk are telling you that some of these argument are
so bogus that you can't really fool anyone with them anymore? Why are
you still fooled?
Ron Okimoto
Kent
Well. At least you have to admit that the post is well named. It is
indeed filled with misconceptions.
Davej
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God
created H1N1 to kill children. It didn't evolve -- it was created.
Then you want to propose that the reason God did this was because an
insufficient number of goats were being sacrificed and that more
uppity women need to be stoned to death. We need to make God happy or
the crops will fail and the cows will stop giving milk.
Eric Root
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Really? It seems pretty silly to me that you think dismissive
ridicule is persuasive.
Anyway it is proper to dismissively ridicule people who come here with
arguments that have already been refuted, since repeating a refuted
argument is a form of lying. Any genuine, new creationist argument
would be welcomed.
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part.
Actually we pro-science people believe rightly that our views are
validated by all the evidence that is available so far. What evidence
do you have for whatever you think happened? Your answer has to mesh
with known science. It would be more honorable of you to worry about
that _first_. That would be the way to break the monopoly of current
scientific theory.
> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis.
Sorry, scientists aren't interested in demonstrating any such thing as
"evolutionism."
> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory,
It is dishonest and pejorative to use the word "dogma" instead "the
current scientific understanding." One can start to see in you the
kind of behavior that eventually attracts dismissive ridicule.
> and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
If they want a career in science, they will have to spend the time it
takes to understand its scientific validity. Whenever there is
anything wrong with evolutionary theory, those are the guys that find
it out, but guess what, they are only finding out fine points and
details about evolution. It's already settled that it actually
happens.
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
Sorry, this is flat out untrue, every one of those things was refuted
long ago. You can read the refutations yourself if you look at the
talk.origins website. Every refutation is in strict accordance with
modern scientific thinking. You only remain an honest person if
you've never encountered these refutations before.
Scientists are under no moral obligation to politely repeat
refutations. On the other hand, you are morally obligated not to
repeat an argument that has been refuted. See above. either you are
ignorant and now know better, or you are a dishonest charlatan.
(snip baloney)
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
The stupidest thing you've said (I've left in the mean-hearted things
you've said.)
Look up for yourself why.
In all due respect, for someone who claims not to like dismissive
ridicule, you have practically given yourself a hernia trying to earn
it.
Eric Root
rossum
wrote:
>The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They
>were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were
>deliberately in force. The complexity of the experimental design, which
>was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the
>chemicals produced.
I can intelligently design a model of God - it will have a big "Smite"
button on it.
Since I can intelligently design a model of God therefore God must be
intelligently designed.
since we now all agree that God was designed we can leave off
worshipping God and start worshipping the Designer of God or DoG.
rossum
Louann Miller
202.177.16.121:
> The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They
> were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were
> deliberately in force.
But not because that was the only way those conditions could arise. The
situation could happen in nature, that was the POINT. The experiment was
set up to simulate a specific natural environment because that was quicker
and simpler than starting with a methane planet and baking on low for a few
million years.
> The complexity of the experimental design, which
> was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the
> chemicals produced.
See above.
TomS
<136f1213-7ab5-4084...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Davej
stated..."
A creationist may say that diseases were not the creation of God,
but were the result of the Fall of Man.
Perhaps this would be as good as any introduction to the "What"
question for creationism:
*What* sort of thing is a result of creation?
What sort of thing is not?
Individuals? Populations? Kinds? Ecological systems? Lineages?
Organs?
The bacterial flagellum? The tree of life? The relationship between
the human body and the bodies of chimps and other apes? The enhanced
ability to hunt that excellent vision gives to predators?
Desertphile
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Okay, I give up: what is "evolutionist?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Frank J
> "On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), in article
> stated..."
>
>
>
> >On Nov 8, 3:30=A0am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> >> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> >> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> >> [...]
>
> >I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God
> >created H1N1 to kill children. It didn't evolve -- it was created.
> >Then you want to propose that the reason God did this was because an
> >insufficient number of goats were being sacrificed and that more
> >uppity women need to be stoned to death. We need to make God happy or
> >the crops will fail and the cows will stop giving milk.
>
> A creationist may say that diseases were not the creation of God,
> but were the result of the Fall of Man.
>
> Perhaps this would be as good as any introduction to the "What"
> question for creationism:
>
> *What* sort of thing is a result of creation?
>
> What sort of thing is not?
I think I told you before, but for the benefit of others:
A Panda's Thumb regular named "FL" once admitted that human conception
was a "design actuation event." While a skilled IDer, would just play
word games with "design actuation event," any reasonable person would
interpret it as an "intervention." Which means that FL's admission
undermines the DI's has painstaking effort to suggest (but never state
outright) that those events occured "so long ago that it makes no
sense to speculate on where or when they occurred". Also, aside from
early admissions of common descent by some major IDers, they have been
careful not to commit to any of those "interventions" being "in-vivo"
or requiring new cells built from nonliving chemical systems.
>
> Individuals? Populations? Kinds? Ecological systems? Lineages?
> Organs?
>
> The bacterial flagellum? The tree of life? The relationship between
> the human body and the bodies of chimps and other apes? The enhanced
> ability to hunt that excellent vision gives to predators?
I know I can trust you to keep asking, if only to show how they evade
the questions. It's the bait-takers that I worry about.
Burkhard
In my experience, sacrificing goats doesn't really help with crops,
but gets the tomatoes up a treat. Virgins and lambs work well for
broccoli. Don't know about milk.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by evolutionguru
<albie...@hotmail.com>:
>A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
>because...
....they are supported by publicly-available evidence.
Thanks for pointing this out.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Desertphile
Seven hours and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not
seen your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric
delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence
for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some
time within the next 1,000 years.
David Hare-Scott
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> There are no transitional fossils.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
How do you explain the variety of life on earth that we see? How did those
millions of species get there? When? Who or what put them there?
State your case. Since your claim is all about the lack of scientific
validity of evolution I would expect to see your alternative in the form of
a scientific case made with supporting evidence.
David
Sapient Fridge
Miller <loua...@yahoo.com> writes
>Sapient Fridge <use_repl...@spamsights.org> wrote in
>news:me3kmcZ0...@spamsights.org:
>
>> In message
>> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>>>Evolution has never been observed.
>>
>> Lie.
>
>I don't even think this guy rises to the level of lie. To lie he'd have
>to know what the right answer was and choose to say something else. He's
>just vaguely spouting stuff from church or Jack Chick that sounds good to
>him.
Fair enough.
I should probably have labelled them "False" rather than "Lie" because
(as you point out) I don't know for certain that he knows the statements
are false.
--
sapient_...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
Grok: http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org * nuke a spammer *
Find: http://www.samspade.org http://www.netdemon.net * today *
Kill: http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> The five propositions below are among the most moronic claims of babblical
> cretinists and IDiots.
Mistake in OP corrected for everyone's convenience.
--
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
R. Baldwin
8713-004...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven�t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn�t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
Certainly, evolution has been observed.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1514180
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Anyone who states this hasn't got the foggiest clue what the second law of
thermodynamics is.
The second law of thermodynamics states that when an irreversible (or
spontaneous) process occurs in a system, the entropy of the system plus the
entropy its environment increases. Precisely how does evolution violate
this?
> There are no transitional fossils.
Every fossil is transitional. Every living organism is transitional. You
are transitional.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
Where does the theory of evolution say this?
Origin of life is the subject of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution
describes what happens after life already exists.
Random chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution does not proceed
exclusively by random chance. Natural selection is not random chance. Gene
flow is not random chance.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn�t been proved.
>
>
A theory is as good as it gets in science. There is never proof in science.
Germ theory is not proven, it is well established. Gravity is not proven,
it is well established. Evolution is not proven, it is well established.
Proof is for mathematics and liquor.
Germ theory, gravity, atomic theory, general relativity, thermodynamics,
and evolution are all theories. All are well established. None are proven.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"evolutionguru" <albie...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
**** No; THE major reason why evolution arguments can sound so persuasive is
because THEY HAVE FACTS AND EVIDENCE to support their claims.
You, on the other hand, have nothing but ignorant lies ............ like
these!
Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
their part. But they haven�t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
unscientific basis. (The situation isn�t helped by poor science
education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
scientific data and/or scientific laws.
Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
proceeds, by random chance.
Iain
> On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
> will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
> time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
> kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
> genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
> science.
You're making a false distinction between:
a) A new thing
b) A new version of an old thing
You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is
the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation
within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a
miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template'
section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation.
'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship
that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the
concept leaves no room for controversy.
> Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
> one falsifiable example of macroevolution
Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
> (NOT variation, changes in
> the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a
> creature?
Yes, proof of increase in DNA: easy. It's called 'addition mutation'.
I will provide it if you request it, for the sake of answering your
question.
But that wasn't your point was it?
Your essential request is nonsensical. You're making an old, old
tiresome silly classic error.
--Iain
All-seeing-I
> On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
> > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
> > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
> > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
> > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
> > science.
>
> You're making a false distinction between:
>
> a) A new thing
> b) A new version of an old thing
>
> You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is
> the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation
> within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a
> miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template'
> section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation.
> 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship
> that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the
> concept leaves no room for controversy.
>
> > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
> > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
>
> Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered
to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species. IOW
when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in
the end. Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you
have is a variation of the same species. Even should the dog become
reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce
together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
place.
Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small
changes over time with an unguided process.
One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense
especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate
for himself is micro evolution.
We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of
pups.
--
All Seeing I
richardal...@googlemail.com
So freaking what?
Of course it will be morphologically and genetically *similar*. If it
wasn't, it would falsify not only evolutionary theory but blow apart
most of the science of biology! However, it's a morphologically and
genetically distinct species, which makes this an example of
macroevolution.
> IOW
> when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in
> the end.
...and if we didn't, it would falsify evolutionary theory.
> Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you
> have is a variation of the same species.
No, you end up with a *new* species.
> Even should the dog become
> reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
> the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce
> together.
...which means that it is a different species, and an example of
macroevolution.
> The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
>
> I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
> exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
> population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
> place.
So what stops changes accumulating over billions of generations so
that fish *can* evolve into mammals?
More to the point, if all these "kinds" were created separately, why
do they all fit neatly into the nested hierarchy predicted by
evolutionary theory?
>
> Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small
> changes over time with an unguided process.
>
> One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense
> especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate
> for himself is micro evolution.
Actually, speciation - and you have accepted that it occurs - is
macroevolution.
>
> We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of
> pups.
So if all these "kinds" were created separately, why do they all fit
neatly into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolutionary theory?
RF
Iain
On Nov 9, 5:36 am, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
Thankyou for compiling these classic hoary old fallacies so that they
may be disposed of in bulk.
> Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution is observed in every sense.
Evolution, according to evolutionary theory, does not consist of any
processes which we cannot casually observe today. Variation within a
population(innaccurate reproduction), and influence of the environment
on which members of a population do and do not reproduce (non-random
selection).
And yes, speciation is observed (reproductive isolation of two
populations losing the ability to interbreed).
If you think there are any remaining senses in which evolution has not
been observed, then you are attacking a strawman version of
evolutionary theory.
The big idea which the mere observation of evolution cannot prove, is
the idea that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. But
that is a statement concerning the past, and therefore by its own
nature cannot be observed directly except by forensic means. But the
inability to observe the past directly is not a theoretical weakness,
nor an absence of evidence.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No. I don't know where to begin here because it's irrelevant from the
outset. You would need to expand your own attempt at an argument.
> There are no transitional fossils.
Wrong; millions. That's like saying 'there are no transitional
languages', when quite clearly nearly all languages are in a state of
transition. Transition is what the fossil record is all about.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated,
Wrong, evolutionary theory says nothing on the origin of life. The
evolution of life and the origin of life are two different things,
requiring seperate explanations, seperate theories. You can say what
you want on the origin of life, and it would have no bearing on
evolutionary theory. A thing must exist before it can evolve.
> and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
Wrong. It proceeds by the non-random accumulation of random variation.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
'Only' doesn't make sense before 'theory'. 'Theory' is the most
prestigeous rank an idea can have in science.
--Iain
Iain
Of COURSE the new species is 'morphologically similar' to its
predecessor. If it wasn't, that wouldn't be evolution now, would it?
That doesn't change the fact that:
a) It's a new species
b) It's not morphologically the same.
> IOW
> when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in
> the end.
How on Earth do you manage to commit the precise fallacy which I just
elucidated, so soon too? I'm literally speechless. Or wordless.
The whole point is that ' New version of an old thing ' doesn't make
sense in evolution.
> Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you
> have is a variation of the same species.Even should the dog become
In other words, a unique new species which is similar to the one that
came before, but not exactly the same.
In other words, evolution.
> reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
> the wolf.
You mean it's similar. That's it. So what?
> Nothing has changed
Well yes, additional things have changed besides the inability to
reproduce. Haven't you noticed how wolves and foxes differ?
> other then they can no longer reproduce
> together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
No, never. No dog ever, ever takes 'after its kind'.
Each individual takes after its parent(s), with inaccuracies. Kinds
and categories don't influence inheritance itself. How on Earth do you
suppose that could even work?
That's like a photocopy magically choosing to return to being the
master copy.
Where's this information to come from?
> I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
> exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
> population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
> place.
It's far from exotic, that if you make a copy of a copy of a copy, and
repeat inaccuracies for millions of years, that you'll end up with
something different. It's far from exotic, that if, each generation,
the environment influences the odds of reproduction, that the species
will gravitate naturally toward a structure which is, in effect, a
reproducing machine.
In fact, it's exotic to claim otherwise.
> Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small
> changes over time with an unguided process.
No, not the claim. Why lie?
--Iain
rossum
Yes. THe new species will be similar to, but not the same as, the
species it evolved from. In the same way children are similar to, but
not the same as, their parents.
>IOW
>when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in
>the end. Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs.
Yes. That is why we get the nested hierarchy - all descendants of
eukaryotes are eukaryotes. All descendants of synapsids are
synapsids. All descendants of ammmals are mammals.
>In the end all you
>have is a variation of the same species.
No, as you said correctly above, you get a new species that is similar
to the old species and will be in the same genus.
>Even should the dog become
>reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
>the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce
>together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
Both will still be canids, carnivores, mammals, synapsids, trtrapods
etc. all the way beck up to eukarytes. You need to understand the
nested hierarchy, and its origin, better.
rossum
Nick Keighley
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive
is that they are correct?
> is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
ah, I guessed wrong
<snip>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
new species have arisen within your lifetime. The fossil and genetic
records show evolution to be an incontrovertable fact. By your
definition of "observe" pluto doesn't orbit the sun.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
no. This has been refuted so many times you should be embarassed
> There are no transitional fossils.
my cousin worked in the Natural History Museum. She tells me the place
is so packed with material they don't know what to do with it. This
includes transiational fossils by the ton lot (*literally*)
[I've edited the next statement to split it in two]
> The theory of evolution says that life originated [by random chance]
no, evolution has nothing to say about origins. Apart from teh fact
that logically there must have been some sort of beginning. The best
bet is some sort of auto-catylysing reation.
> [The theory of evolution says that ] evolution proceeds,
> by random chance.
...and natural selection. Does microevolution ever proceed by what you
characterise as "random chance"?
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
the same with Quantum Mechanics and yet that theory explains the
source of the energy that powers the sun (and all the other stars), it
makes atom bombs go bang, works the chips in your computer, the super
conducting magnets in CERN (the problem they had last year was when
the magnets stopped being super-conductors), LEDs, lasers, electron
microscopes...
There's nothing as practical as a good theory
--
Nick keighley
I don't like quantum mechanics,
and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.
--Erwin Schrödinger
Iain
> Yes. THe new species will be similar to, but not the same as, the
> species it evolved from. In the same way children are similar to, but
> not the same as, their parents.
The Creationist refusal to understand this concept resembles some kind
of stage hypnosis.
--Iain
Ye Old One
I gave you a very detailed list of fruit flies the other day Mudbrain,
you didn't reply. Why was that Mudbrain?
>Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you
>have is a variation of the same species. Even should the dog become
>reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
>the wolf.
Which has evolved to its present form, it has not always been a wolf.
> Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce
>together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
>
>I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
>exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
>population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
>place.
And yet we know that is exactly what happened.
>
>Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small
>changes over time with an unguided process.
The fossil record show it happened.
>
>One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense
>especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate
>for himself is micro evolution.
There is only one type of evolution.
>
>We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of
>pups.
--
Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright
ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little
sign of breaking down in the near future.
Ye Old One
Nah! Stage hypnosis can be entertaining.
--
Bob.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the
day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Frank J
wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0800 (PST), Frank J
>
>
>
>
>
> <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (snip PRATTs)
>
> > Greetings newcomer, if you are indeed one.
>
> > You seem to have problems with evolution. I have heard them all
> > before, but what I haven't read yet is what you think happened instead
> > that lacks all these "problems."
>
> > So please describe your alternative, however tentative, in detail,
> > *without* reference to any problems you have with evolution. Start
> > will how many years ago you think the first life appeared on earth,
> > and whether humans share common ancestors with other species. Note
> > that an agreement with evolution on those two questions does not
> > necessarily imply that you accept the Darwinian mechanism, as Michael
> > Behe exemplifies.
>
> Seven hours and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not
> seen your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric
> delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence
> for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some
> time within the next 1,000 years.
Female creationists are certainly rare around here, if not on school
boards. I miss Zoe's imaginative, if misleading, isochron threads.
So far I'm awaiting (but not expecting) replies from E-guru, All-Runny-
Nose and microevolution-free Ray. Interestingly, the last 2 evolution-
deniers who did answer my questions (and it always took 2 or more
tries) admitted a ~4-billion year age of life and common descent.
Alas, the pseudoscience code of silence is alive and well, because
they refused to challenge, or be challenged by, evolution-deniers with
radically different opinions.
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
> "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
raven1
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Evolution has never been observed.
>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>There are no transitional fossils.
>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>proceeds, by random chance.
All of the above statements are trivially false.
>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence, not
"proof", and the evidence for evolution, including empirical
observation, is conclusive.
Gene Poole
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
> There are no transitional fossils.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
>
>
8.5/10 on the lokimeter.
Desertphile
<fc...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (snip PRATTs)
>
> Greetings newcomer, if you are indeed one.
>
> You seem to have problems with evolution. I have heard them all
> before, but what I haven't read yet is what you think happened instead
> that lacks all these "problems."
>
> So please describe your alternative, however tentative, in detail,
> *without* reference to any problems you have with evolution. Start
> will how many years ago you think the first life appeared on earth,
> and whether humans share common ancestors with other species. Note
> that an agreement with evolution on those two questions does not
> necessarily imply that you accept the Darwinian mechanism, as Michael
> Behe exemplifies.
Two days and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not seen
your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric
delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence
for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some
time within the next 1,000 years.
--
Louann Miller
news:t2fgf59dsa7tc3afc...@4ax.com:
re newbie who wants to slap us all down with Handy-Dandy refutations that
we must have never seen before, otherwise we wouldn't still be soulless
Godless evilutionists:
> Two days and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not seen
> your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric
> delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence
> for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some
> time within the next 1,000 years.
I'm googling the lyrics to "The Battle of New Orleans" in either case. It
always comes in handy sooner or later.
Louann "so the hounds couldn't catch 'em" Miller
Kent Paul Dolan
entirely ignorant of evolution) wrote:
> Evolution has never been observed.
False.
Evolution has been observed in nature, even
within the lifetime of a single researcher, and
described in peer reviewed scientific journals,
more times than are convenient to count.
You refusing to consult the plentiful evidence
merely makes you ignorant, not authoritative.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
False.
The smallest unit over which the second law of
thermodynamics pertains is the entire universe,
and so it is a "law" only in an abstract sense.
It can only be approximated by attempts to
create a closed environment, in, for example,
the interior of a vacuum flask.
It has nothing whatever to say about the kind of
open system in which earthly evolution of living
entities occurs, a system through which
plentiful energy flows both in and out occur.
> There are no transitional fossils.
You have to redefine "transitional fossil" to
some astonishingly ignorant creationist
muddle-think to make this claim.
Otherwise, there are (at least) trillions of
easily gathered transitional fossils, just among
the ones embedded in or constituting limestone.
It is worth adding, though your level of
ignorance won't let you even comprehend the
idea, that sequenced genomes are newly
additional types of transitional fossils within
which the journeys of evolution of species can
be tracked by genomic fossil hunters.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated,
> and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
The theory of evolution makes no claim at all
about the origin of life.
You are simply wildly misinformed, presumably
from too much reading of creationist loon
websites designed specifically to promote
ignorance among the profoundly gullible.
The only occurrences of "random chance" in the
theory of evolution are in the creation of
heritable variation, and in genetic drift.
The natural selection part of the theory of
evolution is supremely non-random.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
In the sense in which you use "only a theory",
you mean "hypothesis", not "theory".
In the sense in which scientifically literate
persons use "theory", that is, as the word for
the most robust of the kinds of claims science
makes about nature, there is no such thing as
"only a theory", that is a phrase used only by
ill-educated dunces such as you.
Science doesn't entail "proof", nor claim to do
so.
Science never attempts to "prove" anything, only
to reduce the probability that something is
false to negligable levels at which every
educated person can accept their likelyhood as
being unarguable.
In that sense of "theory", the theory of
evolution is certainly the strongest current
theory of science.
Since each of those statements you made is a
creationist falsehood or a creationist display of
ignorance and an often and easily rebutted one at
that, you are two strikes past a strikeout, and an
embarrassment to your team that you are nevertheless
still stubbornly standing at the plate, denying
other members of your team a chance at bat.
By such behavior are invincibly ignorant morons
detected.
Welcome to the list.
xanthian.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Baldwin"
<res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>:
>evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-
>8713-004...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
<snip>
>> There are no transitional fossils.
>Every fossil is transitional. Every living organism is transitional. You
>are transitional.
Surely not. Surely you meant (with hope springing eternal
and all that) "There are transitionals and extinctions. You
are not a transitional."
<snip further idiocies by the grossly misnamed
"evolutionguru">
bpuharic
>
>to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species. IOW
>when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in
>the end.
yeah and humans and apes are just apes. so is that your argument?
the fact is, you just admitted creationism is dead. if speciation
happens by evolutuion then nothing else matters.
Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you
>have is a variation of the same species.
?? first you admit speciation happens THEN in the same post you say it
doesnt
you creationists are desperate
Even should the dog become
>reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of
>the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce
>together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
>
>I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
>exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
>population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
>place.
uh...hey moron...how much speciation do you expect in 100 or so years?
you creationists...2000 years of failure and STILL are clueless
R. Baldwin
news:1ed8cdf8-ae1c-45f9...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
That is exactly what is predicted by the theory of evolution. Speciation
events are not expected to be dogs turning into cats.
>
> I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such
> exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a
> population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take
> place.
You would have to live a very long time to observe a population of fish
giving rise to a population of humans, unless you are willing to observe
the fossil evidence.
>
> Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small
> changes over time with an unguided process.
Depending on what you mean by "unguided", you might say that natural
selection is "guided."
>
> One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense
> especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate
> for himself is micro evolution.
A lot more than that can be manipulated.
Ernest Major
<1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
>dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
>Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
>persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
>to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
>their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
>unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
>understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
>have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
>The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
>evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
>but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
>scientific data and/or scientific laws.
You know, if we were to delete the material above, the material below
would be perfectly described by the subject heading - you've presented 5
false statements, or misconceptions, about evolution.
>
>Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution has been observed.
* I'm told that the evolution of anti-biotic resistance in bacteria is a
standard undergraduate biology lab experiment.
* See also Lenski's work on E. coli.
* And Grant's work on Certhidea.
* And another Grant's work on Gilia.
* And several examples of speciation that should be directly observed
enough for any but the most through going epistemological nihilist.
If you mean common descent hasn't been observed then you are (as well as
ignoring work on speciation) are mistaken, or applying an unreasonably
restrictive conception of observation. Pretty much all observation is
indirect - lying at the end of a chain of inference, and common descent
is no different from atoms, disease-causing microorganism, and the orbit
of Pluto. Are you consistent in your epistemological nihilism?
>Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. (Don't you
think that if it did there would be physicists jumping up and down about
it - from Kelvin onwards.) If no step in evolution violates the 2nd law,
then evolution as a whole doesn't - you need to identify an essential
step that does violate the 2nd law.
>There are no transitional fossils.
Archaeopteryx and other "dino-birds"; basal tetrapods; the
theraspid-mammal series; whales with legs; proto-seals'; a variety of
hominid taxa; a wasp-ant transitional. Etc.
>The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>proceeds, by random chance.
Natural selection is non-random. Evolution has stochastic elements, and
is probably sensitively dependent on initial conditions, but to say that
it proceeds by random chance is inaccurate.
>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
Evolution is a fact - an inference confirmed by such voluminous evidence
from several separate but mutually supporting lines of evidence that it
would be perverse to deny it the status of fact. (If evolution is not a
fact, then facts are remarkably thin on the ground.) The theory of
evolution is the body of explanations for that fact.
Evolution is pretty much as proven as anything in science. (Feynmann
ranked it 3rd, after QED and GR, but implicitly ahead of thermodynamics.
If you're going to go to a mathematical conception of proof you've just
shot down your second claim - by your standards thermodynamics is only a
theory, it has been proved.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Jim Lovejoy
news:436hf5lgeee7cgpr6...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:36:31 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Baldwin"
> <res0...@nozirevBACKWARDS.net>:
>
>>evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-
>>8713-004...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> There are no transitional fossils.
>
>>Every fossil is transitional. Every living organism is transitional. You
>>are transitional.
>
> Surely not. Surely you meant (with hope springing eternal
> and all that) "There are transitionals and extinctions. You
> are not a transitional."
>
> <snip further idiocies by the grossly misnamed
> "evolutionguru">
Considering the vast bogosity of most self proclaimed gurus, I think the
name rather apt.
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Jim Lovejoy
<nos...@devnull.spam>:
Ummm... Point. But are all as ignorant of the subject of
their "guru-ness" as this one?
Dakota
It might be reasonably said that not all living organisms are
transitional. Organisms that fail to produce offspring, for whatever
reason, may be members of a transitional group, but are not, themselves,
transitional. They do contribute to natural selection by being part of
the environment. In that sense, they exert some influence on
transitional processes.
I may, of course, be wrong for I am not a guru.
Ernest Major
<ma...@NOPSAMmail.com> writes
morphologically intermediate fossils - for example Archaeopteryx is
morphologically intermediate between earlier non-volant maniraptorans
and modern birds - not phylogenetic intermediates (literal descendants
of one form and ancestors of another). Fossils don't come with
pedigrees, and we can't tell in general whether any particular fossil
had descendants (we can infer that juveniles didn't; I can't think
offhand of any case where we can tell whether an individual did). Nor
can we tell in general whether a particular fossil species belongs to a
lineage that persisted, or was a part of a sister group to one that did.
Furthermore, whether fossils are intermediate depends on the scale at
which you are looking. One a broad scale end-Cretaceous maniraptorans
are transitional between earlier theropods and modern birds. On a narrow
scale they are dead ends, and not transitional.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ron O
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:22:39 -0600, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Jim Lovejoy
> > <nos...@devnull.spam>:
>
> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote in
> >>news:436hf5lgeee7cgpr6...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:36:31 -0600, the following appeared
> >>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Baldwin"
>
> >>>> evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-
> >>>> 8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com:
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> There are no transitional fossils.
> >>>> Every fossil is transitional. Every living organism is transitional. You
> >>>> are transitional.
> >>> Surely not. Surely you meant (with hope springing eternal
> >>> and all that) "There are transitionals and extinctions. You
> >>> are not a transitional."
>
> >>> <snip further idiocies by the grossly misnamed
> >>> "evolutionguru">
> >> Considering the vast bogosity of most self proclaimed gurus, I think the
> >> name rather apt.
>
> > Ummm... Point. But are all as ignorant of the subject of
> > their "guru-ness" as this one?
>
> It might be reasonably said that not all living organisms are
> transitional. Organisms that fail to produce offspring, for whatever
> reason, may be members of a transitional group, but are not, themselves,
> transitional. They do contribute to natural selection by being part of
> the environment. In that sense, they exert some influence on
> transitional processes.
>
Yes, that is the bogus wiggle room that some of them use, but they
don't plainly express the lame concept when they claim "no
transitionals," but it is a dishonest argument and not valid for the
simple reason that it doesn't matter. If you find one individual,
there was likely to be a population of such individuals, not only
that, but there was likely to be a bunch of closely related species
that looked pretty much like that individual. Someone used the
example of deer. There are relatively closely related deer like White
Tailed, Black Tailed, and Mule Deer, but Irish elk out to Moose are
relatively closely related. Does it matter which of these species and
populations leave descendent species? If you find a fossil you just
know when it existed relative to others, and sometimes you get lucky
enough to get a pretty accurate date as to when it existed. You also
have a pretty good idea that there were a lot of closely related
species that looked about the same. We don't know which of these
populations evolved into later representations, but so what? All
science needs to know is that something like them existed at about the
correct time period. How does the opposition explain their existence?
Less than half a million fossil species have been characterized.
There could be tens of millions of extant species. The majority of
fossil species do not have close relatives among the extant species.
That just means that they would likely be classified as different
kinds. We only have a representation of what existed. Over the 3.8
billion year history of life on earth we have only a miniscule
fraction of the various species that have ever existed. Just do the
estimate. half a million fossil species compared to millions of
extant species, and we know that life has been much different in the
past. There have even been major extinction events where over 90% of
the species went extinct in the Permian extinction 200 million years
ago and over 80% of the species that had managed to claw their way
back up and diversify again were wiped out in the extinction event
that took out the dinos 65 million years ago.
How likely are we to have found the transitional species or the
transitional animal? No serious scientists expext to be able to make
that determination with the fossil record that we currently have. The
reality is that it just doesn't matter to the creationist argument.
There really isn't much doubt that life has evolved on this planet
over a very long time period.
Ron Okimoto
Steven L.
> In message
> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>
> There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
>
> http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdf
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution
> http://www.canetoadsinoz.com/toadevolution.html
> http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lizard-evolution657.html
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/j-m/2572841.stm
>
>> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
>
> The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
> energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
> called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is not
> a closed system.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
It's not just the sun either.
Natural radioactivity from rocks on Earth, and cosmic rays from outer
space, may cause genetic mutations.
Plate tectonics and volcanism (driven by the radioactive energy at the
Earth's core) also affect the evolution of life on Earth. Indeed, some
theorize that life began around underwater volcanic vents.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Steven L.
> Scientists are under no moral obligation to politely repeat
> refutations. On the other hand, you are morally obligated not to
> repeat an argument that has been refuted.
Creationism is more of a political movement than a scientific one. It
undertakes political campaigns at local school boards, for example.
And politicians, unlike scientists, frequently repeat arguments that
have been refuted. In fact, sticking to your talking points despite any
criticism is standard operating procedure in politics.
Steven L.
> On Nov 8, 3:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
>> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
>> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
>
>
> I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God
> created H1N1 to kill children.
Strawman.
Most creationists accept that microbes evolve new traits
(microevolution). They accept that antibiotic resistance in bacteria
has evolved. What they don't accept is that brand new species can evolve.
As a supporter of the ToE, I say let's not stoop to the level of
creationists by raising strawmen.
Steven L.
Old-style creationists, like Henry Morris, were quite upfront and honest
about their model of just what happened: It's Genesis, interpreted
literally, and explained scientifically. That was Morris' definition of
Creation Science.
The reason modern creationists don't admit that anymore, is that the
courts have held that such a "science" is in fact religion, and cannot
be taught in public schools. So they have to keep it to themselves.
If you go to Answers in Genesis, you will still see what they
believe--God created this and then God created that and so on. But they
can't advocate for that in public anymore.
But they still believe it privately. All of it.
Steven L.
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
We've observed evolution within a species; even most creationists accept
that.
We've observed ring species, in which subspecies eventually become so
different that they can no longer interbreed and must be taken as
different species.
But if you mean we haven't "observed" the emergence of the dinosaur
genera, the emergence of the mammal genera, etc., the emergence of Homo
Sapiens--well, you're right. Absolutely right.
Critics of the ToE such as yourself have a very restricted view of what
science is capable of. You seem to believe that science requires
*eyewitness accounts* in order to draw scientific inferences. That is
not the case. If it were the case, scientists could not say anything
about parts of the Universe (like the center of our Galaxy) which we
cannot observe directly; or about events that took place before recorded
history; or about events which may take place millions or billions of
years from now.
In the early 19th century, John Dalton pioneered the atomic theory--yet
neither he nor any of his contemporaries had ever seen an atom. No one
would ever view an atom directly for another 160 years. Yet scientists
from Dalton onward accepted that atoms were real. How did they know?
Forensic scientists can reconstruct crimes and finger the perp, even if
there are no eyewitnesses. (Those CSI programs on TV show it
colorfully.) How does forensic science work?
The way science works, is it formulates hypotheses from available data
(which is often indirect evidence). From those hypotheses, it makes
predictions about what new discoveries might show. And then, if those
discoveries do show those things, it helps validate the theory. That
works even if at no point do we have direct eyewitness observations.
That has enabled science to make amazing discoveries about things which
no human being has ever seen. The ToE is just one example.
Steven L.
It does require one intellectual leap: That eventually, some generation
of progeny will appear that is so different from its original ancestors
that it could no longer interbreed with them, and therefore must be
considered a new separate species.
Humanity hasn't existed long enough for that. A human of today could
interbreed with a human from 50,000 years ago--if one could be retrieved
via a time machine or something. Dogs can still interbreed with wolves.
Are there examples of creatures which were bred by artificial selection
to the point that they could no longer interbreed with their ancestors?
I guess corn is a good example. Today's domesticated varieties of
corn can no longer pollinate themselves without human intervention.
Steven L.
> On Nov 8, 5:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), evolutionguru
>>>> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
>>>> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
>>>> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
>>>> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
>>>> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
>>>> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
>>>> their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>>>> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
>>>> unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>>>> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
>>>> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
>>>> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>>>> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
>>>> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
>>>> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
>>>> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>>>> Evolution has never been observed.
>>> antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
>>> that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
>>> the population of bacteria is still changing.
>> I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
>> will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
>> time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
>> kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
>> genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
>> science.
>
> macroevolution.
I know what they've said (cf. "Flock of Dodos"). The only evidence they
will accept is direct eyewitness observation of the various speciation
events. And no humans were around to observe the emergence of
dinosaurs, or mammals, or (obviously) humans themselves.
Of course, no humans were around to witness God creating the heaven and
the earth either, so how do we know it happened that way either?
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Dakota <ma...@NOPSAMmail.com>:
I think you're correct, FWIW. So perhaps I should have said
"There are transitionals, dead ends and extinctions. You are
not a transitional."
Jim Lovejoy
That's a pretty high bar to leap. Many are ignorant enough of the subject
so that calling themselves "neophyte" would be boasting, but most are not
as ignorant as his "guru-ness" is.
Bob Casanova
That was my impression.
Mark Isaak
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven't come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn't helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are no
> transitional fossils.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.
When you quote something, it is rude not to cite the author.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Vend
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology
Actually it's the creationists who do that.
> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally.
That must be why nearly all scientists accept the theory of evolution
while creationism is mostly popular among the uneducated.
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> Evolution has never been observed.
False.
Many observations have been made. Nylon-eating bacteria are one of my
favorite example.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
This is so obviously false that even creationist organizations agree.
> There are no transitional fossils.
False.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
The theory of evolution doesn't say anything about how life
originated.
It says that evolution proceeds by random mutation, random genetic
drift and natural selection.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
Obviously you don't know what a scientific theory is.
Mike Lyle
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800, evolutionguru wrote:
>
>> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
>> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and
>> allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and
>
> When you quote something, it is rude not to cite the author.
I wonder if I should care who this Timothy Wallace is, if he's the
author of the "guru's" copy-and-pasted message.
But what really intrigues me is what exactly motivates the drive-by
creationists who flit through this group from time to time with
long-discredited arguments they don't stick around to defend.
--
Mike.
chris thompson
The lack of evidence is sufficient proof of creation, evidently.
Chris
>
> --
> Steven L.
> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Louann Miller
$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> But what really intrigues me is what exactly motivates the drive-by
> creationists who flit through this group from time to time with
> long-discredited arguments they don't stick around to defend.
>
I *wish* they were interesting. They've run across these arguments
themselves, found them vaguely convincing, and re-posted them with the
idea that in some way doing so advances God's Holy Cause and/or makes
them good Christians.
Then they bugger off. Because they have an even stronger (and accurate)
vague suspicion that reading rebuttals to "The Handy-Dandy Evolution
Refuter" or what have you is not going to let them keep that warm fuzzy
feeling.
I just started reading "A Question of Intent," about the tobacco
industry's fight against truth, justice, and the FDA. I suspect there may
be real similiarities. Will report back periodically if I find something
good.
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:hdmre4$1r4 $1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> But what really intrigues me is what exactly motivates the drive-by
>> creationists who flit through this group from time to time with
>> long-discredited arguments they don't stick around to defend.
>>
>
> I *wish* they were interesting. They've run across these arguments
> themselves, found them vaguely convincing, and re-posted them with the
> idea that in some way doing so advances God's Holy Cause and/or makes
> them good Christians.
>
> Then they bugger off. Because they have an even stronger (and
> accurate) vague suspicion that reading rebuttals to "The Handy-Dandy
> Evolution Refuter" or what have you is not going to let them keep
> that warm fuzzy feeling.
Yes, I suppose you're right. I was probably being over-charitable to
think there's some kind of systematic motive.
>
> I just started reading "A Question of Intent," about the tobacco
> industry's fight against truth, justice, and the FDA. I suspect there
> may be real similiarities. Will report back periodically if I find
> something good.
Blood-curdling. Next week: asbestos.
--
Mike.
evolutionguru
> "On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), in article
> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> evolutionguru stated..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> >because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> >dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> >Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> >persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> >to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> >to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> >education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> >understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> >have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> >The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> >evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> >but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> >scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> >Evolution has never been observed.
> >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> Interesting, isn't it, that these are *not even *claimed to be
> propositions *in *favor *of creationism, intelligent design, or
> any other supposed alternative to evolutionary biology.
Wrong, they are evidence for creationism and intelligent design, thats
why they are claimed...
> They are wrong in so many ways, and even at that, they don't
> take even the first step toward supporting creationism. That
> first step being answering "What is the alternative to evolution?"
Well, that's let me guess; Creationism!
> How many of these same points apply with just as much force against
> creationism?
None actually do...
> Has creationism ever been observed? What would it even look like,
> if it were to be observed?
There you have a good point, but neither has macro-evolution been
observed..., so the burden is on you...
> Does creationism violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know
> that even the most intelligent of designers can't violate the 2nd
> law of thermodynamics.
The creator is not part of his creation, so he is not subjected to his
own laws...
> How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
Well, they are just extinct animals...
read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
> What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
> it from "random chance"?
Creation has nothing to do with random chance, random chance is not a
creative force, creation is.....
> Has creationism ever been proved? Has it ever been given enough of
> a positive, definite description so that we can even imagine what
> a demonstration would look like?
I am sorry but the creation was a single event, creation could be
proved by irriducible complexity, Intelligent Design, and by the
refuting the opposite...
> --
> ---Tom S.
> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to
> the currant jelly.
> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> I am sorry but the creation was a single event, creation could be
> proved by irriducible complexity, Intelligent Design, and by the
> refuting the opposite...
"the opposite"? But there are many possibilities, not just one.
For example, Ray's strongly of the opinion that Creation wasn't a single
event at all: he denies microevolution (though permits some kind of
variation within species in some not terribly clearly articulated
sense). Indeed, when his legendary/imaginary paper is released he's
expecting to be sued by creationists (because he thinks almost all of
them are evolutionists).
[...]
Burkhard
Not really, no. We have observed "microevolution", as you conceded. We
haven't even observed micro-creation. Burden of proof is on you.
Especially since the ToE argues and supports with evidence that
mirco-evoltuion repeated often enough _has_ to become macroevolution
over time. .
Burkhard
Not really, no. Even if all these claim were true, no positive statement
about creationism would follow. both creationism and evolution might be
wrong, e.g.
>> They are wrong in so many ways, and even at that, they don't
>> take even the first step toward supporting creationism. That
>> first step being answering "What is the alternative to evolution?"
> Well, that's let me guess; Creationism!
again, no. There is no fully formulated scientific theory of
creationism. So even if these claims were correct, one response would be
: "back to the drawing board, we simply don't know" (would be mine)After
al, there are lots of things for which we don't have an answer yet.
If you are more adventurous, you coudl try a version of ID plus
evolution: Life did evolve, but on another planet where the rate of
mutation is so high, and by pure luck the local DNA equivalent so
simple, that you can indeed see evolution in real time.
Because of that natural advantage, they have developed a highly
sophisticated civilisation aeons ago, and now help less fortunate
planets like ours with panting life forms.
Lots of variations of this are possible - as above, even if these claims
were true, nothing from it follows regarding creationism.
>> How many of these same points apply with just as much force against
>> creationism?
> None actually do...
Sure:
-creation by a deity has never been observed
- it woudl violate the second law of thermodynamics
- it is only a theory
all three apply. Only the alleged absence of the fossil record is solved.
>> Has creationism ever been observed? What would it even look like,
>> if it were to be observed?
> There you have a good point, but neither has macro-evolution been
> observed..., so the burden is on you...
>> Does creationism violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know
>> that even the most intelligent of designers can't violate the 2nd
>> law of thermodynamics.
> The creator is not part of his creation, so he is not subjected to his
> own laws...
How do you know? That's just a theory. No entity not subject to the laws
of physics has ever been observed...
>> How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
> Well, they are just extinct animals...
> read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
>
>> What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
>> it from "random chance"?
> Creation has nothing to do with random chance, random chance is not a
> creative force, creation is.....
>> Has creationism ever been proved? Has it ever been given enough of
>> a positive, definite description so that we can even imagine what
>> a demonstration would look like?
> I am sorry but the creation was a single event, creation could be
> proved by irriducible complexity, Intelligent Design, and by the
> refuting the opposite...
Only if you can make a case that the alternatives are exhaustive, which
you haven't.
evolutionguru
wrote:
> In message
> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >Evolution(MACRO-evolution) has never been observed.
>
> Lie.
>
> There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
variation in an already existing genepool?, or the evolution from one
species to another?
> http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolutionhttp://www.canetoadsinoz.com/toadevolution.htmlhttp://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lizard-evolution657.htmlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/medical_notes/j-m/2572841.stm
If that the best is what you have, I am really sorry for you...
First the example of the peppered moth evolution has nothing to do
with evolution, the white moth gets killed because he is better
visible for birds, or white moths do have an advantage over dark moths
on pale trees, and a disadvantage on dark trees, and vice versa.
...
The rest of your examples show a variation taken place in an already
existing genepool, the frog is getting better in Australia because in
Australia there are no animals hunting him, and the best conditions
for reproduction can be found there...
> >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
>
> The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
> energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
> called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is not
> a closed system.
system, now the point is that we know that raw solar energy alone does
not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy,
speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and
disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job,
a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then
without the addition of solar radiation). If raw solar energy would
decrease entropy, no scientist would object to the elimination of the
ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase
in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary
process, as it were) in the world as we know it...
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo
> There is no violation of the 2nd law.
>
> >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> Lie.
>
> Virtually every fossil found is a transitional fossil.
Well, following the same logic, why do biologist classify animals in
to species?
perhaps you are a transitional between a donkey and an ape, I don't
know....
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
eat this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
> Here's a nice example of one:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/7278.ars
>
> >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> Lie.
>
> The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is
> a subject called abiogenesis and we still don't know what happened.
> Research is ongoing though.
Yes ok, when that's your definition. But the abiogeneses is needed to
even speak of evolution, so is the big burb...when those are not true,
you don't have life to evolve...
> >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> True. Nothing in science can be proven, science can only find evidence
> to support theories or disprove them. All the evidence found so far
> supports evolution, nothing supports the presence of a god.
Woaw, I came to just the opposite conclusion, as you see
> Well, well. Four outright lies in a single post. And creationists
> wonder why we think they are dishonest. Your subject line was well
> chosen though.
Yes indeed it was...
> --
> sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org* nuke a spammer *
> Find:http://www.samspade.orghttp://www.netdemon.net * today *
> Kill:http://mail-abuse.com http://au.sorbs.net http://spamhaus.org
evolutionguru
> On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>
> > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> > unscientific basis.
>
>
> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>
> > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> and empirically supported?
You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
evidence for macro-evolution.
http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
>
>
> > The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> all of the statements are false, of course; but creationism's real
> success is that it's pushed by churches and believers are of a herd
> mentality, unwilling to question their authoritarian leaders
Dana Tweedy
>> Interesting, isn't it, that these are *not even *claimed to be
>> propositions *in *favor *of creationism, intelligent design, or
>> any other supposed alternative to evolutionary biology.
> Wrong, they are evidence for creationism and intelligent design, thats
> why they are claimed...
Supposed problems with evolution are not evidence for creationism and it's
clone "intelligent design".
>
>> They are wrong in so many ways, and even at that, they don't
>> take even the first step toward supporting creationism. That
>> first step being answering "What is the alternative to evolution?"
> Well, that's let me guess; Creationism!
No. Even if evolution were to be totally rejected, the alternative would
have to be another scientific theory, not a religious belief such as
creationism.
>> How many of these same points apply with just as much force against
>> creationism?
> None actually do...
Below are the points.
>> Has creationism ever been observed? What would it even look like,
>> if it were to be observed?
> There you have a good point, but neither has macro-evolution been
> observed..., so the burden is on you...
Macroevolution has been observed, many times.
>> Does creationism violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know
>> that even the most intelligent of designers can't violate the 2nd
>> law of thermodynamics.
> The creator is not part of his creation, so he is not subjected to his
> own laws...
Which is another reason why it's not science. Evolution, by the way does
not violate any laws of thermodynamics.
>> How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
> Well, they are just extinct animals...
That just happen to appear intermediate between known groups?
> read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
Creationist sites such a "true origin" are notoriously unreliable.
>
>> What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
>> it from "random chance"?
> Creation has nothing to do with random chance, random chance is not a
> creative force, creation is.....
What kind of force is 'creation' anyway? How can be observed? How can it
be measured?
>> Has creationism ever been proved? Has it ever been given enough of
>> a positive, definite description so that we can even imagine what
>> a demonstration would look like?
> I am sorry but the creation was a single event, creation could be
> proved by irriducible complexity, Intelligent Design, and by the
> refuting the opposite...
"irreducible complexity" is not proof, or even evidence for creation. Even
if there were any examples of it, it could be explained by evolution as
well.
DJT
Ernest Major
<9f6b4291-371c-4b43...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
evolutionguru <albie...@hotmail.com> writes
That is a logical error - it's called the fallacy of false dichotomy.
There's also the problem that there all misconceptions, and as such
can't be evidence against evolution, never mind for creationism and
intelligent design.
>
>> They are wrong in so many ways, and even at that, they don't
>> take even the first step toward supporting creationism. That
>> first step being answering "What is the alternative to evolution?"
>Well, that's let me guess; Creationism!
Would the alternative be Vedic Creationism, which holds that life has
existed unchanged for billions of years? Or Young Earth Creationism,
which holds that life was created 6,000 years ago (and would that be Ken
Ham's hyperevolutionism, or Ray Martinez's anevolutionism)? Or
Progressive Creationism, which holds that life was created in stages
over the last 4 billion years. Or Raelianism? There are many
alternatives, and not all of them can be shoehorned into the categories
of evolution or creationism.
>> How many of these same points apply with just as much force against
>> creationism?
>None actually do...
You've just been reduced to special pleading to claim that the second
doesn't apply with just as much force against creationism, so you've
effectively refuted yourself on this point. You don't seem to have done
any better on the other points either.
>> Has creationism ever been observed? What would it even look like,
>> if it were to be observed?
>There you have a good point, but neither has macro-evolution been
>observed..., so the burden is on you...
Speciation is commonly considered to be macro-evolution. Speciation has
been observed in the wild, under domestication and in the laboratory
(and a new observation was posted to this newsgroup in the last few
days). Those observations are sufficiently direct that you have to be a
thorough going epistemological nihilist to deny them. By more normal
standards of epistemology not only macro-evolution, but the common
descent of known terrestrial life from a common ancestor is observed -
the observations may be indirect, but just about all observations are
indirect to some degree.
>> Does creationism violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? You know
>> that even the most intelligent of designers can't violate the 2nd
>> law of thermodynamics.
>The creator is not part of his creation, so he is not subjected to his
>own laws...
>> How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
>Well, they are just extinct animals...
>read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
What in that article accounts for the existence of transitional fossils?
>
>> What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
>> it from "random chance"?
>Creation has nothing to do with random chance, random chance is not a
>creative force, creation is.....
But, What rules or regularities does creationism follow, to distinguish
it from "random chance"?
>> Has creationism ever been proved? Has it ever been given enough of
>> a positive, definite description so that we can even imagine what
>> a demonstration would look like?
>I am sorry but the creation was a single event, creation could be
>proved by irriducible complexity, Intelligent Design, and by the
>refuting the opposite...
You're repeating the fallacy of false dichotomy.
As ably argued by Tony Pagano, the Intelligent Design program is
vacuous.
Furthermore the existence of irreducibly complex systems does not
falsify evolution, never mind prove creationism. There are at least
three classes of paths by which irreducibly complex systems can evolve,
and indeed they were predicted as a consequence of evolution decades
before Behe introduced the term.
>> --
>> ---Tom S.
>> the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail;
>>it is due to
>> the currant jelly.
>> Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2- Tekst uit
>>oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>>
>> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
>
--
alias Ernest Major
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 8 nov, 13:53, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>
> > > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> > > unscientific basis.
>
> > what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
>
> > (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>
> > > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> > > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> > > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> > how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself, valid
> > and empirically supported?
>
> You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
> evidence for macro-evolution.http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
...no, but speciation is.
You've been provided with the links.
Read them.
RF
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 8 nov, 12:55, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:> In message
> > <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> > evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> > >Evolution(MACRO-evolution) has never been observed.
>
> > Lie.
>
> > There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
>
> Well, here we got the problem again, what do you call evolution?;
Changes in the genetic makeup of populations of living organisms over
successive generations.
> variation in an already existing genepool?, or the evolution from one
> species to another?>http://www.spamsights.org/cambrian/science_papers/Blount%202008.pdfht...
It's all evolution.
>
> If that the best is what you have, I am really sorry for you...
> First the example of the peppered moth evolution has nothing to do
> with evolution, the white moth gets killed because he is better
> visible for birds, or white moths do have an advantage over dark moths
> on pale trees, and a disadvantage on dark trees, and vice versa.
> ...
Yes, it's called "natural selection". It the evolutionary mechanism
described by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace 150 years ago.
> The rest of your examples show a variation taken place in an already
> existing genepool, the frog is getting better in Australia because in
> Australia there are no animals hunting him, and the best conditions
> for reproduction can be found there...
Yes, it's called "evolution".
>> >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> > Lie.
>
> > The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
> > energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
> > called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is not
> > a closed system.
>
> ok, correct; the universe is a closed sytem but earth is an open
> system, now the point is that we know that raw solar energy alone does
> not decrease entropy. In fact, by itself, it increases entropy,
> speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and
> disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job,
> a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass, first with and then
> without the addition of solar radiation). If raw solar energy would
> decrease entropy, no scientist would object to the elimination of the
> ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase
> in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary
> process, as it were) in the world as we know it...
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
>
> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo> There is no violation of the 2nd law.
>
> > >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> > Lie.
>
> > Virtually every fossil found is a transitional fossil.
>
> Well, following the same logic, why do biologist classify animals in
> to species?
What on earth has that to do with the issue?
> perhaps you are a transitional between a donkey and an ape, I don't
> know....>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
>
> eat this:http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
>
> > Here's a nice example of one:
>
> >http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/7278.ars
>
> > >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> > >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> > Lie.
>
> > The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That is
> > a subject called abiogenesis and we still don't know what happened.
> > Research is ongoing though.
>
> Yes ok, when that's your definition.
It's the definition of evolution coined by the scientists who study
the process, and abiogenesis is the term coined by the scientists who
study abiogenesis.
Why should we not use terms in the sense for which they were coined?
> But the abiogeneses is needed to
> even speak of evolution,
...and planetary formation is necessary for there to be planets. Do
you think that unless we know how planets were formed we can't study
their orbits?
>so is the big burb...when those are not true,
> you don't have life to evolve..
The fact that life exists proves that an abiogenesis event (or events)
occurred. Even if life started when God magically pouffed a huge
diversity of organisms into existence, we would *still* have
evolutionary theory because we observe evolution in action in
populations of organisms.
.> >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> > True. Nothing in science can be proven, science can only find evidence
> > to support theories or disprove them. All the evidence found so far
> > supports evolution, nothing supports the presence of a god.
>
> Woaw, I came to just the opposite conclusion, as you see
...which demonstrates only that you don't understand the nature of
science.
> Well, well. Four outright lies in a single post. And creationists
> > wonder why we think they are dishonest. Your subject line was well
> > chosen though.
>
> Yes indeed it was...
As a matter of idle curiosity, do you think anyone believes that you
come into this forum with an open mind? Clearly you are a creationist.
All you do is regurgitate uncritically creationist arguments and
demonstrate no willingness whatsoever to educate yourself in
evolutionary theory.
What do you think it tells us about creationists that they adopt this
rather dishonest approach?
RF
>
> > --
> > sapient_usene...@spamsights.org ICQ #17887309 * Save the net *
> > Grok:http://spam.abuse.net http://www.cauce.org*nuke a spammer *
Dana Tweedy
> On 8 nov, 12:55, Sapient Fridge <use_reply_addr...@spamsights.org>
> wrote:
>> In message
>> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>> Evolution(MACRO-evolution) has never been observed.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> There are *many* instances of evolution being observed. Examples:
> Well, here we got the problem again, what do you call evolution?;
Evolution is defined as "change in allele frequency in populations over
time".
> variation in an already existing genepool?, or the evolution from one
> species to another?
Both are evolution. Variation in an existing gene pool leads to evolution
from one species into another.
> If that the best is what you have, I am really sorry for you...
Why?
> First the example of the peppered moth evolution has nothing to do
> with evolution, the white moth gets killed because he is better
> visible for birds, or white moths do have an advantage over dark moths
> on pale trees, and a disadvantage on dark trees, and vice versa.
That's how natural selection works. The alelle frequency of the dark morph
of the moth increased due to increased predation of the light morph. When
the environment changed, the white morph became more numerous in the
population.
Both changes are instances of evolution.
> ...
> The rest of your examples show a variation taken place in an already
> existing genepool, the frog is getting better in Australia because in
> Australia there are no animals hunting him, and the best conditions
> for reproduction can be found there...
Evolution is not about "getting better" but changing to adapt to local
conditions.
>>> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> The 2nd law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems with no
>> energy coming in. You might have noticed that large ball of energy
>> called the sun nearby? That provides energy and means the earth is
>> not a closed system.
> ok, correct; the universe is a closed sytem but earth is an open
> system, now the point is that we know that raw solar energy alone does
> not decrease entropy.
Actually, it does, because life on Earth evolved to use that raw solar
energy. See Photosynthesis.
> In fact, by itself, it increases entropy,
> speeding up the natural processes that cause break-down, disorder, and
> disorganization on earth (consider, for example, your car’s paint job,
your car's paint job doesn't have a way of converting solar energy into
food. Life does.
> a wooden fence, or a decomposing animal carcass,
The decomposing animal carcass provides energy for a whole ecosystem of
scavengers, and other agents of decomposition.
> first with and then
> without the addition of solar radiation). If raw solar energy would
> decrease entropy, no scientist would object to the elimination of the
> ozone, since more raw solar energy would only mean a welcome increase
> in organized complexity (a hastening of the alleged evolutionary
> process, as it were) in the world as we know it...
The reason why scientists object to the loss of the ozone layer is that it
permits ultraviolet radiation to increase. Photosynthesis doesn't use
ultraviolet radiation, and so it wouldn't be an increase in the solar energy
used by Earth. Also, ultraviolet tends to do all kinds of nasty things to
living tissue, so having an increase in it, would not assist evolution.
>
>
>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html
> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#thermo
>> There is no violation of the 2nd law.
>>
>>> There are no transitional fossils.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> Virtually every fossil found is a transitional fossil.
> Well, following the same logic, why do biologist classify animals in
> to species?
Because humans have a need to categorize things. Species are not totally
discrete entities, but a "fuzzy" at the edeges.
In any case, there are many transitional fossils. The most famous one is
Archaeoptyerx, but there are thousands of other lesser known ones.
> perhaps you are a transitional between a donkey and an ape, I don't
> know....
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
> eat this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
>
>> Here's a nice example of one:
>>
>> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2007/03/7278.ars
>>
>>> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
>>> proceeds, by random chance.
>>
>> Lie.
>>
>> The theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of life. That
>> is a subject called abiogenesis and we still don't know what
>> happened. Research is ongoing though.
> Yes ok, when that's your definition.
It's the definition used by scientists.
> But the abiogeneses is needed to
> even speak of evolution, so is the big burb...when those are not true,
> you don't have life to evolve...
Still, it's irrelevant. How life got here is not evolution. You seem to
be confusing "abiogenesis" with "naturalistic means". However life got
here, it was most likely a naturalistic event, not a supernatural one.
>>> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>>
>> True. Nothing in science can be proven, science can only find
>> evidence to support theories or disprove them. All the evidence
>> found so far supports evolution, nothing supports the presence of a
>> god.
> Woaw, I came to just the opposite conclusion, as you see
How did you come to that conclusion?
>> Well, well. Four outright lies in a single post. And creationists
>> wonder why we think they are dishonest. Your subject line was well
>> chosen though.
> Yes indeed it was...
Don't you see that the misconceptions are yours?
DJT
evolutionguru
> On Nov 8, 5:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > antibiotic we are observing evolution. I kow you will probably call
> > > that "microevolution", but that is still evolution - the genomes of
> > > the population of bacteria is still changing.
>
> > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool
> > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over
> > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different
> > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful
> > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not
> > science.
>
> assert there's no 'new' information.
>
> this is impossible. variation IS 'new' information. and creationists
> never even had a clue that there WERE genes...so creationism is
> useless
False information my dear: Variation does not constitute evidence for
evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different
combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not
add any new characteristic to the genetic information. The important
thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how
brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.
>
>
> > > >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
> creationists have never stated why evolution violates the SLOT. they
> don't understand it, so handwave it as a talisman against science. of
> course, again, creationism itself has no understanding of the concept
> of thermodynamics.
>
>
>
> > > False. The Miller-Urey experiment shows that simple chemicals can
> > > combine to form more complex chemicals in prebiotic conditions.
>
> > Wrong conclusion, I think you don't exactly know what for experiment
> > Miller-Urey's really is. The experiment actually provided compelling
> > evidence for exactly the opposite conclusion. For example, equal
> > quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always
> > were produced by the Urey/Miller procedure.
>
> wrong analysis. this is a matter of kinetics as well as thermo...and
> kinetics is ANOTHER area of science creationists dont understand. they
> don't understand how molecules interact. hell, creationism doesn't
> even accept the existence of molecules, explaining chemistry instead
> by invoking demons and devils
What was exactly wrong with my analysis? "this is a matter of kinetics
as well as thermo"-- I have no problems with that...
> in addition, this a god of the gaps argument. this is about the ORIGIN
> of life, not its evolution.
Ok, no problem, but you need the ORIGIN of life to led evolution take
place...
> > And by the way Making the building blocks of life is easy amino acids
> > have been found in meteorites and even in outer space. But just as
> > bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random
> > collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the
> > building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and
> > exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.
>
> much more relevant is the evolution of RNA. and recent experiments
> have discovered how RNA can develop in natural products...a crucial
> discovery in the development of life
that's balony, read this: http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_16.html
> and another failure for creationism
>
>
>
> > > >There are no transitional fossils.
>
> > > False. Archaeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Morganucodon, Cerion
> > > etc. are all transitionals.
>
> > Again the same ruminal so called "transitionals"
>
> creationist websites aren't science websites. they are church
> ministries, so necessarily are biased against science.
> false, you should read some articles on this website: http://www.trueorigin.org/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> > > >proceeds, by random chance.
>
> > > False. Evolution includes natural selection, and natural selection is
> > > not a "random chance" process, far from it. The origin of life is a
> > > different theory, called abiogenesis; that works mainly by chemistry
> > > and chemistry is not a random process either.
>
> > Here we find a classic game of semantics and subjective re-definition
> > of terms. On the one hand, “chance plays a large part,” yet natural
> > selection (now portrayed as if an inherently, non-accidental,
> > designed, deliberate, goal-oriented process) plays a “fundamental
> > role,” these two “opposites” somehow combining to make it all work
> > out, precisely according to theory?
>
> obviously the creationist doesn't understand science. he doesn't
> understand the role of chance in mutations. mutations happened. they
> can be observed and measured
Beneficial mutations? I don't think so, I f you have one, show me
please...
> creationism can neither explain, nor test, how phenotypical variation
> happens. to creationists it's all a matter of evil spirits, ghosts and
> other supernatural causes. unfortunately these have NEVER explained
> ANYTHING in nature; they have been used to explain earthquakes,
> plagues, floods, etc. and they've always been wrong
Ad-hominem spam.
> so creationism is demonstrably false.
more Ad-hominem spam.
> > here some recall of what respected evolutionary authorities have said
> > concerning natural selection:
>
> > “If most evolutionary changes occur during speciation events and if
> > speciation events are largely random, natural selection, long viewed
> > as a process guiding evolutionary change, cannot play a significant
> > role in determining the overall course of evolution.” [Steven M.
> > Stanley (evolutionist), Proceedings of the National Academy of
> > Science, 72:640-660, (1975), p.648.]
>
> nicely quoted out of context. and a distortion of
> language...creationism leads to distortions of language as
> creationists gyrate, trying to avoid the conclusions of science
Hilarious, you can't refute that one, can't you... haha...
> stanley does not say there is NOT an element of chance in evolution.
> he says if chance is THE driving factor then selection is not.
>What is that for nonsense, you need both chance(mutations) and natural selection in evolution.
> the creationist, of course, has poor language skills so doesn't
> understand
more Ad-hominem spam.
> historian dan diner of hebrew university, has found that hamas
> terrorists and other islamist fundamentalists, have poor language
> skill because their fundamenatlist religious ideology does not enable
> them to understand modern concepts....the same applies to
> creationists..
more Ad-hominem spam.
>
>
> > “Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
> > necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection operates
> > essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of
> > adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection over the long
> > run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but
> > simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the constantly changing
> > environment” [Richard C. Lewontin (evolutionist); "Adaptation."
> > Scientific American (and Scientific American Book, Evolution), Sept.
> > 1978]
>
> no mention at all of chance in this quote. again a creationist
> language problem
another missing the point argument and more Ad-hominem spam.
>
>
> > “Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
> > to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
> > toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so
> > in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of Living
> > Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
>
> no mention at all of chance. so the creationist, again, demonstrates
> poor language skills
actually mutations happen by chance....
So another missing the point argument and more Ad-hominem spam.
>
>
> > “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin
> > has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random
> > mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact that random
> > mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a
> > tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up,
> > Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
>
> koestler was a political theorist, not an evolutionary biologist.
So what, Darwin was a theologian.
>
>
> > > >Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> > > Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
> > > the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
> > > can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory of
> > > Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking better
> > > than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum gravity.
>
> > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than
> > one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation, changes in
> > the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a
> > creature?
>
> more poor language skills...reading creationism is like reading the
> old 'pravda' communist newspaper...distortions abound in both
Ad-hominem again,next time I will use an abbreviation: A.H.
> what's the difference between 'variation' and 'mutation?' the
> creationist can not explain. but this is linked to creationism's
> inability to understand how organisms vary, and the source of that
> variation. where modern day science sees chemistry, the creationist
> sees demons and supernatural causes
False and A.H.
> if the creationist can point to ONE observed example of a demon, let
> him do so. science, of course, can point to millions of examples of
> chemistry in action...one example is the genetic code
False and A.H.
> it's not demon based like creationists say it is.
no, creationist think that you are a bit demon based, so don't lie!
>
>
>
>
> > > rossum- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Dana Tweedy
> On 8 nov, 13:53, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>>
>>> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable
>>> and unscientific basis.
>>
>> what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
>>
>> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>>
>>> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
>>> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and
>>> few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific
>>> validity.)
>>
>> how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself,
>> valid and empirically supported?
> You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
> evidence for macro-evolution.
Why isn't it?
> http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
You'd do better to avoid linking to creationist sites altogehter. Wallace,
who runs the above site is very dishonest.
DJT
evolutionguru
> On 11/8/09 4:30 AM, * evolutionguru wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
> > Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> > persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> > to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
>
----mantra----
> > Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>
------mantra-----
> > There are no transitional fossils.
>
------mantra------
> > The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> > proceeds, by random chance.
>
------mantra-----
> > Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>
> sentence is that you are arguing against something
> you simply have no understanding of.
Ad-Hominem, but trust me, you have less understanding of the evolution
theory as a turnip has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantra
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
> is no God. I equally cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
> may exist; so may the gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
> no one of these hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
> region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
> consider any of them."
> Bertrand Russell- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Christopher Denney
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is
> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating,
> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Well, dismissive ridicule towards people who say stupid sh*t.
(i.e. most creationists)
> Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by
> persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions
> to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on
> their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
see above <insert dismissive ridicule here>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> scientific data and/or scientific laws.
These five are among to most thoroughly refuted "stupid sh*t" that
creationists have ever come up with. i.e. the most likely to cause
dismissive ridicule to be the response.
> Evolution has never been observed.
incorrect.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Demonstrates a lack of understanding of BOTH evolution AND
thermodynamics. (twice the ridicule is called for)
> There are no transitional fossils.
All fossils are transitional, or terminal.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution
> proceeds, by random chance.
Wrong twice again. Evolution presupposed life exists, has nothing to
say on it's origin; evolution is the opposite of random change.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
No such thing as "only" a theory. Theories are the foundation of all
science, every little hypothesis wants to become a theory when it
grows up.
cf. Gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, quantum theory, etc.
evolutionguru
<richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 nov, 13:53, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>
> > > > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> > > > unscientific basis.
>
> > > what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
>
> > > (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>
> > > > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> > > > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> > > > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> > > how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself, valid
> > > and empirically supported?
>
> > You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
> > evidence for macro-evolution.http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
>
> ...no, but speciation is.
resulting in a different animal all together but rather phenotype
diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.
Any other conclusion reached will not suffice but rely on
extrapolation that assumes deep time will allow such evolution...
So the major factor is time..., am I right?
> You've been provided with the links.
>
> Read them.
>
> RF
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to
> > > > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them,
> > > > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical
> > > > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
>
> > > all of the statements are false, of course; but creationism's real
> > > success is that it's pushed by churches and believers are of a herd
> > > mentality, unwilling to question their authoritarian leaders
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> > > - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Augray
<albie...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<9f6b4291-371c-4b43...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> :
>On 8 nov, 12:53, TomS <TomS_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), in article
>> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>> evolutionguru stated..."
[snip]
>> How does creationism account for the transitional fossils?
>Well, they are just extinct animals...
>read this: http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
Why are you refering to a page that uses several of the quotes that
were refuted just days ago in
news:ls25g55cq37is8hs9...@4ax.com ?
[snip]
evolutionguru
> evolutionguru wrote:
> > On 8 nov, 13:53, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>
> >>> to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable
> >>> and unscientific basis.
>
> >> what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
>
> >> (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>
> >>> education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> >>> understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and
> >>> few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific
> >>> validity.)
>
> >> how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself,
> >> valid and empirically supported?
> > You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
> > evidence for macro-evolution.
>
> Why isn't it?
Do you know a mechanism that can produce NEW DNA sequences?
please read the definition of genetic variation my son...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_variation
read it again...
> >http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
>
> You'd do better to avoid linking to creationist sites altogehter. Wallace,
> who runs the above site is very dishonest.
Oh, my mom is somethimes dishonest to, but she makes right
arguments..., and that is the point!
Refuting something based on ad-hominems is easy indeed, but refuting
the arguments with evidence is more difficult...
> DJT- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> this is impossible. variation IS 'new' information. and creationists
>> never even had a clue that there WERE genes...so creationism is
>> useless
>
> False information my dear: Variation does not constitute evidence for
> evolution because variations are but the outcomes of different
> combinations of already existing genetic information, and they do not
> add any new characteristic to the genetic information.
But mutations are the ultimate cause of the variations. Mutations add new
"information".
> The important
> thing for the theory of evolution, however, is the question of how
> brand-new information to make a brand-new species could come about.
Mutations.
snip
> Hilarious, you can't refute that one, can't you... haha...
>> stanley does not say there is NOT an element of chance in evolution.
>> he says if chance is THE driving factor then selection is not.
>> What is that for nonsense, you need both chance(mutations) and
>> natural selection in evolution. the creationist, of course, has poor
>> language skills so doesn't
>> understand
> more Ad-hominem spam.
You seem to have missed the point. Evolution is not random chance.
>> historian dan diner of hebrew university, has found that hamas
>> terrorists and other islamist fundamentalists, have poor language
>> skill because their fundamenatlist religious ideology does not enable
>> them to understand modern concepts....the same applies to
>> creationists..
> more Ad-hominem spam.
Then ignore the "ad hominem" and address the issue.
>>
>>> “Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not
>>> necessarily lead to greater adaptation ... Natural Selection
>>> operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their
>>> state of adaptation rather than improve it ... Natural selection
>>> over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of
>>> survival, but simply enables it to ‘track,’ or keep up with, the
>>> constantly changing environment” [Richard C. Lewontin
>>> (evolutionist); "Adaptation." Scientific American (and Scientific
>>> American Book, Evolution), Sept. 1978]
>>
>> no mention at all of chance in this quote. again a creationist
>> language problem
> another missing the point argument and more Ad-hominem spam.
You are the one missing the point here. The quote above doesn't say that
evolution is random chance.
>>
>>
>>> “Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
>>> to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations
>>> toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do
>>> so in disorder.” [Pierre-Paul Grassé (evolutionist), Evolution of
>>> Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
>>
>> no mention at all of chance. so the creationist, again, demonstrates
>> poor language skills
> actually mutations happen by chance....
Mutations are random, but the selection process in evolution is not.
> So another missing the point argument and more Ad-hominem spam.
Again, you are the one missing the point. Evolution is not a random chance
process.
>>
>>
>>> “In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that
>>> Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula
>>> of random mutation plus natural selection—quite unaware of the fact
>>> that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural
>>> selection a tautology.” [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A
>>> Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
>>
>> koestler was a political theorist, not an evolutionary biologist.
> So what, Darwin was a theologian.
Darwin had schooling in theology, but his main occupation was science. He
was very well trained in science, and that was what he excelled in.
>>
>>
>>>>> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
>>
>>>> Correct. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, just like
>>>> the Theory of Gravity. All scientific theories are provisional and
>>>> can never be proved. Neither the Theory of Gravity nor the Theory
>>>> of Evolution is final, though at the moment the ToE is looking
>>>> better than the ToG - we are still awaiting a theory of quantum
>>>> gravity.
>>
>>> Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me
>>> than one falsifiable example of macroevolution (NOT variation,
>>> changes in the genecode that already exist) or increase of
>>> information(DNA) in a creature?
>>
>> more poor language skills...reading creationism is like reading the
>> old 'pravda' communist newspaper...distortions abound in both
> Ad-hominem again,next time I will use an abbreviation: A.H.
Evolutionary change does not require an increase in "information" but such
can happen by mutations.
>> what's the difference between 'variation' and 'mutation?' the
>> creationist can not explain. but this is linked to creationism's
>> inability to understand how organisms vary, and the source of that
>> variation. where modern day science sees chemistry, the creationist
>> sees demons and supernatural causes
> False and A.H.
How isn't creationism proposing supernatural causes?
>> if the creationist can point to ONE observed example of a demon, let
>> him do so. science, of course, can point to millions of examples of
>> chemistry in action...one example is the genetic code
> False and A.H.
How is it either false, or ad hominem? He doesn't say that your argument
is wrong because you are a creationist.
>> it's not demon based like creationists say it is.
> no, creationist think that you are a bit demon based, so don't lie!
Actually, many creationists claim that there are demons, and it's the reason
why people accept evolution.
DJT -
evolutionguru
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
I hope you will humilate yourself a little bit and read the article on
the true origin website, it deals with your major point: mutations
This article is really worth reading and it takes the sacred cow of
evolution: beneficial mutations, by its horns.
Thanks in advance for your open mindedness...
evolutionguru
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On 19 nov, 21:42, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>
> <richardalanforr...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 8:26 pm, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 8 nov, 13:53, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism
>
> > > > > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and
> > > > > unscientific basis.
>
> > > > what is 'evolutionism?' is that like 'evolution?'
>
> > > > (The situation isn’t helped by poor science
>
> > > > > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often
> > > > > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few
> > > > > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
>
> > > > how does one question the validity of a theory which is, itself, valid
> > > > and empirically supported?
>
> > > You missed the point, genetic variation is not valid emperical
> > > evidence for macro-evolution.http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#observe
>
> > ...no, but speciation is.
>
> Speciation will NOT produce radical biological structure dissimilarity
> resulting in a different animal all together but rather phenotype
> diversity of structures that constitute specific kinds of animals.
My word! Where did you dig up that bit of scrambled jargon from!
Speciation will produce a population which is reproductively isolated
from its precursor population, and with a slightly different genetic
makeup. The new species will be very similar to its precursor.
There is no barrier to a whole series of speciation events. A long
series of such event *will* result in a very different genotype to the
original population, but it will still bear characteristics which show
its evolutionary ancestry. This is what results in the nested
hierarchy we find in living organisms.
> Any other conclusion reached will not suffice but rely on
> extrapolation that assumes deep time will allow such evolution...
No, it doesn't assume deep time. The evidence for deep time comes from
numerous different sources which are independent of evolutionary
theory.
> So the major factor is time..., am I right?
No, the major factors are variation in the genetic makeup of
populations, neutral drift, natural selection and the other factors
which go to make up the mechanism of evolution.
Why not educate yourself in the subject rather than regurgitating
nonsense from creationist sources?
RF