info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Evolution vs Creationism: predictions
66 views
Skip to first unread message
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 1:39:08 PM4/30/16
to
Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
nature bats last
Apr 30, 2016, 1:53:42 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>
>
.> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
> Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>
>
Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
Seth
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 1:59:28 PM4/30/16
to
Mitchell Holman
Apr 30, 2016, 1:59:28 PM4/30/16
to
Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> predicted, not the future of mankind
>
Evolution is not involved with predictability.
It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because
> of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet,
> negative mutations may occur.
Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
"special creation" meant everything is perfect
in its created form.
news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> predicted, not the future of mankind
>
It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because
> of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet,
> negative mutations may occur.
"special creation" meant everything is perfect
in its created form.
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 2:04:04 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> >
>
> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
correct, there is no predictive powers.
> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> >
>
> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 2:07:18 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
nature bats last
Apr 30, 2016, 2:26:12 PM4/30/16
to
My point, perhaps too obliquely expressed, was that Mendel's seven
years of pea plants hardly proved that traits are static. Many generations
of humans working with countless generations of fruit flies have shown
just how malleable traits are. You don't need fruit flies morphing
into bumblebees to demonstrate that heritable traits are not static.
Seth
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 2:35:57 PM4/30/16
to
nature bats last
Apr 30, 2016, 2:49:55 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > >
> > > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
> > > >
> > > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > >
> >
> > .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
> >
.> > My point, perhaps too obliquely expressed, was that Mendel's seven
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > >
> > > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
> > > >
> > > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > > >
> > > > Seth
> > >
> >
> > .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
> >
.> > years of pea plants hardly proved that traits are static. Many generations
.> > of humans working with countless generations of fruit flies have shown
.> > just how malleable traits are. You don't need fruit flies morphing
.> > into bumblebees to demonstrate that heritable traits are not static.
.> really? you don't see anything but drosophila and that means "malleable traits"?
Unless you somehow think a single mutation creates a brand new beast, then
yes, malleable traits.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
Seth
Malte Runz
Apr 30, 2016, 2:50:25 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>
>Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
What about the positive mutations? What would prevent a mutation that
turned the same diet from poor to good? Europeans learned to drink
cow's milk.
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/09/when-did-humans-first-start-drinking-milk/
***
The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose first evolved in dairy
farming communities in central Europe, not in more northern groups as
was previously thought, finds a new study led by UCL (University
College London) scientists published in the journal PLoS Computational
Biology. The genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk
without getting sick has been mapped to dairying farmers who lived
around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and
central Europe.
***
'I'm pickin' up good mutations'
>
>
>Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. ...
Ignore what?
> ... The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
Did he really?
--
Malte Runz
wrote:
>Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>
>Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
turned the same diet from poor to good? Europeans learned to drink
cow's milk.
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/10/09/when-did-humans-first-start-drinking-milk/
***
The ability to digest the milk sugar lactose first evolved in dairy
farming communities in central Europe, not in more northern groups as
was previously thought, finds a new study led by UCL (University
College London) scientists published in the journal PLoS Computational
Biology. The genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk
without getting sick has been mapped to dairying farmers who lived
around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and
central Europe.
***
'I'm pickin' up good mutations'
>
>
>Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. ...
Ignore what?
> ... The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
Did he really?
--
Malte Runz
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 3:06:59 PM4/30/16
to
>
> http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
>
>
> Seth
Malte Runz
Apr 30, 2016, 3:24:26 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:03:56 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
>> > predicted, not the future of mankind
>> >
>>
>> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
>
>correct, there is no predictive powers.
You can use the ToE to make predictions that will confirm, or falsify,
of course, the theory.
And you can make predictions like 'if an ecosystem becomes isolated,
animals living in it will evolve into a smaller species'. As a rule of
thumb.
>
>> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
>
>random mutations aren't predictable, ...
That counts as a tautology. Rookie mistake.
> ... and adaptation is a misnomer. ...
Going back to my example. Evolving into a smaller species, one that
needs less food to survive, is an adaptation. How else would you
describe it?
> ... If a biological agent can survive an environment, does it have to change to adapt, ...
To change is, in this case, to adapt.
> ... or is adaptation inherited? ...
What do you mean?
> ... The biological agent can survive because it can, not because it became able to survive.
"You see you were born, born
Born to be alive"
--- P. Hernandez
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
>> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
>> > predicted, not the future of mankind
>> >
>>
>> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
>
>correct, there is no predictive powers.
of course, the theory.
And you can make predictions like 'if an ecosystem becomes isolated,
animals living in it will evolve into a smaller species'. As a rule of
thumb.
>
>> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
>
That counts as a tautology. Rookie mistake.
> ... and adaptation is a misnomer. ...
Going back to my example. Evolving into a smaller species, one that
needs less food to survive, is an adaptation. How else would you
describe it?
> ... If a biological agent can survive an environment, does it have to change to adapt, ...
To change is, in this case, to adapt.
> ... or is adaptation inherited? ...
What do you mean?
> ... The biological agent can survive because it can, not because it became able to survive.
"You see you were born, born
Born to be alive"
--- P. Hernandez
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
Andrew
Apr 30, 2016, 4:11:05 PM4/30/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA5FA8348CC2...@216.166.97.131...
> Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
devolution.
devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
a lower level of complexity or essential
quality
This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
Andrew
> Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
devolution.
devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
a lower level of complexity or essential
quality
This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
Andrew
bil...@m.nu
Apr 30, 2016, 4:11:42 PM4/30/16
to
>Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
of course it could not have been predicted.... There was no one around
to predict it. Golly gee you are a moron
>
>Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy
moron
>, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
virus or other sickness <IE. zika>, radiation exposure, intra
breeding, or in your case Really dumb ass parents.
>
>
>Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it.
Where do you get your bullshit from? Do you just invent stupid shit
>
>Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it.
like that? Did you learn it from a church or are you basically
plagiarizing some dumb ass theist web site and then you are posting it
here just to see how many flaws are in it?
> The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
that actually has no idea what they are even saying,. cause it is
obvious that you have no idea what you are saying.
bil...@m.nu
Apr 30, 2016, 4:14:12 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:59:25 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
IDIOT!!! and they are all still laughing at you.. and so are
we!!!!!!!!
we!!!!!!!!
Mitchell Holman
Apr 30, 2016, 5:13:23 PM4/30/16
to
Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
Your god make imperfect life forms?
news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 5:52:32 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > wrote:
> >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> >> >
> >>
> >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >>
> >>
> >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> >> in its created form.
> >
> > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > built into the system from the get go.
>
>
> Your god make imperfect life forms?
life forms were created perfect, but through the free will decisions made by man, suffering and entropy were inflicted upon the creation. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > wrote:
> >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> >> >
> >>
> >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> >>
> >>
> >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >>
> >>
> >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> >> in its created form.
> >
> > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > built into the system from the get go.
>
>
> Your god make imperfect life forms?
nature bats last
Apr 30, 2016, 7:19:48 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:06:59 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:49:55 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > > > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
> > > >
> >
> > .> > My point, perhaps too obliquely expressed, was that Mendel's seven
> > .> > years of pea plants hardly proved that traits are static. Many generations
> > .> > of humans working with countless generations of fruit flies have shown
> > .> > just how malleable traits are. You don't need fruit flies morphing
> > .> > into bumblebees to demonstrate that heritable traits are not static.
> >
> >
> > .> really? you don't see anything but drosophila and that means "malleable traits"?
> >
.> > Unless you somehow think a single mutation creates a brand new beast, then
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:49:55 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:35:57 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 11:26:12 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > > > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
> > > >
> >
> > .> > My point, perhaps too obliquely expressed, was that Mendel's seven
> > .> > years of pea plants hardly proved that traits are static. Many generations
> > .> > of humans working with countless generations of fruit flies have shown
> > .> > just how malleable traits are. You don't need fruit flies morphing
> > .> > into bumblebees to demonstrate that heritable traits are not static.
> >
> >
> > .> really? you don't see anything but drosophila and that means "malleable traits"?
> >
.> > yes, malleable traits.
Fruit flies with a variety of novel traits caused by mutations. In contradistinction
to your claim that ".Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety
.through mixing." You did not demand a crocofly.
Seth
>
>
> >
> > http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
> >
> >
> > Seth
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 7:22:14 PM4/30/16
to
>
> Seth
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
> > >
> > >
> > > Seth
bil...@m.nu
Apr 30, 2016, 8:29:54 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:22:12 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
OH MY it would appear that hemmeroid read one thing about fruit flies,
I am impressed, He actually read something that was not fiction.
>
>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Seth
I am impressed, He actually read something that was not fiction.
>
>
>>
>> Seth
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Seth
bil...@m.nu
Apr 30, 2016, 8:33:43 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:52:30 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
wrote:
suffering can cause HIV? and I told you dont talk about entropy until
you actually know what it is, because entropy has nothing at all to do
with it, nothing at all.
>. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
you need to get up and sit down again because you fell off your
rocker. That has to be in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever
heard
wrote:
you actually know what it is, because entropy has nothing at all to do
with it, nothing at all.
>. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
rocker. That has to be in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever
heard
nature bats last
Apr 30, 2016, 8:36:51 PM4/30/16
to
.> I am impressed, He actually read something that was not fiction.
Oh, I was the one who brought up fruit flies, as they were the most
handy counter example to his claim that "traits are static".
Whereupon he produced one of these:
http://bit.ly/24dLxEc
proceeded to exhume the uprights, and is now demanding that
only the appearance of a spanking new species is what is meant
by traits not being static.
Seth
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Seth
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > http://digital.library.okstate.edu/oas/oas_pdf/v47/p153_158.pdf
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Seth
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 8:39:10 PM4/30/16
to
>
>
> >. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
>
> you need to get up and sit down again because you fell off your
> rocker. That has to be in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever
> heard
Davej
Apr 30, 2016, 8:59:04 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 12:39:08 PM UTC-5, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> [...]
All knowledge is useless with idiots like you. Go study your idiot Bible.
> [...]
All knowledge is useless with idiots like you. Go study your idiot Bible.
Cloud Hobbit
Apr 30, 2016, 9:00:05 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>
>
> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
That's not exactly true though is it?
>
> Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>
>
> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"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."
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm.
The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence.
This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.)
Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.
The point is not that these prove evolution right. The point is that these were predictions that could have turned out to be wrong predictions. So, the people who made the predictions were doing science. The Theory of Evolution was also useful, in the sense that it suggested what evidence to look for, and where.
>The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it >some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations >of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't the >same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same. Mendel >proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety through mixing.
Very good information here: https://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/tutorials/Molecular_and_Mendelian_Genetics19.asp
Cloud Hobbit
Apr 30, 2016, 9:03:38 PM4/30/16
to
Astero...@yahoo.com
Apr 30, 2016, 9:18:47 PM4/30/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> >
> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >
> >
> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
>
> That's not exactly true though is it?
>
> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
>
>
> Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
they haven't been found. that's just an assumption.
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> >
> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >
> >
> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
>
> That's not exactly true though is it?
>
> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
>
>
> Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
>
>
> Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
>
>
> There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
>
>
> Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
>
>
> Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
>
>
> Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
>
>
> Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
>
>
> Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
>
>
> In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear.
After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
>
>
> It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
>
>
> From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
>
>
> In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
>
>
> Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
>
>
> In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
>
> "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."
> Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory
Mitchell Holman
Apr 30, 2016, 9:43:27 PM4/30/16
to
Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
news:5ce07742-588c-4d74...@googlegroups.com:
All life comes from god, HIV is a life form,
therefore your god made HIV.
That IS what you have been telling us, no?
news:5ce07742-588c-4d74...@googlegroups.com:
therefore your god made HIV.
That IS what you have been telling us, no?
Smiler
Apr 30, 2016, 9:55:52 PM4/30/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 15:11:27 -0500, bilgat wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted,
>>not the future of mankind
>
> of course it could not have been predicted.... There was no one around
> to predict it. Golly gee you are a moron
But, but, but, the monkeys predicted it...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 10:39:05 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted,
>>not the future of mankind
>
> of course it could not have been predicted.... There was no one around
> to predict it. Golly gee you are a moron
>>Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because
>>of entropy
>
> Incorrect, entropy has nothing at all to do with change, you fucking
> moron
>
>>, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative
>>mutations may occur.
>
> No you fucktard.... negative mutations come naturally, weather from a
> virus or other sickness <IE. zika>, radiation exposure, intra breeding,
> or in your case Really dumb ass parents.
>>Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of
>>future things to come, and largely ignores it.
>
> Where do you get your bullshit from? Do you just invent stupid shit like
> that? Did you learn it from a church or are you basically plagiarizing
> some dumb ass theist web site and then you are posting it here just to
> see how many flaws are in it?
>
>> The word evolution is name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to
>> give it some respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand
>> the limitations of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and
>> Mendelian genetics aren't the same even though some evolution
>> scientists think they are the same. Mendel proved the that traits are
>> static, and only produce variety through mixing.
>
> yup sounds like you are just plagiarizing from a christian web site that
> actually has no idea what they are even saying,
> cause it is obvious that you have no idea what you are saying.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Andrew
Apr 30, 2016, 10:57:48 PM4/30/16
to
"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:17b9b6ee-a292-4922...@googlegroups.com...
> Andrew wrote:
of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
science and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
accurately predicts experimental findings.
In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. Evidence
shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins
but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
supported by evidence."
http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm
> Andrew wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>
>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>
>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>
>> devolution.
>>
>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>> quality
>>
>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>
>>
>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>
>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>
>> devolution.
>>
>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>> quality
>>
>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>
> You have no evidence for creation.
"Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins
of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
science and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
accurately predicts experimental findings.
In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. Evidence
shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins
but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
supported by evidence."
http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm
Jeanne Douglas
May 1, 2016, 1:23:21 AM5/1/16
to
In article <b5b8a7c9-6d95-4e9e...@googlegroups.com>,
Why do you think that's how evolution works?
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
nature bats last <seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > > > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > >
> > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because
> > > > of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet,
> > > > negative mutations may occur.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of
> > > future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is
> > > name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some
> > > respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations
> > > of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't
> > > the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same.
> > > Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety
> > > through mixing.
> > >
> > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > >
> > > Seth
> >
>
> .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
<piggybacking>
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:53:42 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com
> > > wrote:
> > > > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > > > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > >
> > > > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because
> > > > of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet,
> > > > negative mutations may occur.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > .> Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of
> > > future things to come, and largely ignores it. The word evolution is
> > > name-dropped with Mendelian genetics in order to give it some
> > > respectability, however Darwin did not clearly understand the limitations
> > > of genetic expression as we do. Evolution and Mendelian genetics aren't
> > > the same even though some evolution scientists think they are the same.
> > > Mendel proved the that traits are static, and only produce variety
> > > through mixing.
> > >
> > > Countless generations of Drosophila are laughing at you.
> > > Just as would, were there an afterlife, Mendel's ghost.
> > >
> > > Seth
> >
>
> .> are they? Drosophila are still Drosophila so you just proved my point.
Why do you think that's how evolution works?
--
JD
Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.
bil...@m.nu
May 1, 2016, 3:29:01 AM5/1/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 17:39:08 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
Ahhhh it was the curse.... that explains it all
You moron
>
>
>>
>>
>> >. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
>>
>> you need to get up and sit down again because you fell off your
>> rocker. That has to be in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever
>> heard
>
>It's not dumb. Most crime is committed by unsupervised youngsters. If these had obstacles, like things to do, or other problems, they wouldn't have the leisure to go around stealing or what not.
You are a total idiot and waste of o2
You moron
>
>
>>
>>
>> >. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
>>
>> you need to get up and sit down again because you fell off your
>> rocker. That has to be in the top 5 of the dumbest things I have ever
>> heard
>
>It's not dumb. Most crime is committed by unsupervised youngsters. If these had obstacles, like things to do, or other problems, they wouldn't have the leisure to go around stealing or what not.
nature bats last
May 1, 2016, 3:58:53 AM5/1/16
to
On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > > wrote:
> > >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> > >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> > >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> > >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> > >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> > >> in its created form.
> > >
> > > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > > built into the system from the get go.
> >
> >
> > Your god make imperfect life forms?
>
.> life forms were created perfect, but through the free will decisions made by man, suffering and entropy were inflicted upon the creation. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > > wrote:
> > >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> > >>
> > >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> > >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> > >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> > >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> > >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> > >> in its created form.
> > >
> > > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > > built into the system from the get go.
> >
> >
> > Your god make imperfect life forms?
>
Wow. Even Answers In Genesis thinks that's a bogus argument.
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/
Seth
Mitchell Holman
May 1, 2016, 8:30:40 AM5/1/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:FbGdnfLiGNw07bjK...@earthlink.com:
A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
news:FbGdnfLiGNw07bjK...@earthlink.com:
Malte Runz
May 1, 2016, 9:02:46 AM5/1/16
to
something completely different.
--
Malte Runz
Don Martin
May 1, 2016, 9:08:41 AM5/1/16
to
On Sun, 1 May 2016 01:55:47 +0000 (UTC), Smiler <smi...@jo.king> wrote
to Bilgat in the process of responding to an Ass:
>>>, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative
>>>mutations may occur.
>>
>> No you fucktard.... negative mutations come naturally, weather from a
>> virus or other sickness <IE. zika>, radiation exposure, intra breeding,
>> or in your case Really dumb ass parents.
>
>When they got married, all the relatives sat on one side of the church.
A small genome is a tidy genome. This reminds me of a hillbilly joke
from the days of me youth:
A bother and sister were in bed together; Sis peeped under the covers
and exclaimed, "Gollee! Yer hung heavier than Paw is!"
"Yup," he replied, "That's whut Maw says!"
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
to Bilgat in the process of responding to an Ass:
>>>, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative
>>>mutations may occur.
>>
>> No you fucktard.... negative mutations come naturally, weather from a
>> virus or other sickness <IE. zika>, radiation exposure, intra breeding,
>> or in your case Really dumb ass parents.
>
>When they got married, all the relatives sat on one side of the church.
from the days of me youth:
A bother and sister were in bed together; Sis peeped under the covers
and exclaimed, "Gollee! Yer hung heavier than Paw is!"
"Yup," he replied, "That's whut Maw says!"
--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
Je pense, donc je suis Charlie.
Andrew
May 1, 2016, 10:05:22 AM5/1/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA5FB4B8A4A3...@216.166.97.131...
> A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
I found that, in general, atheists have no criteria for
evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
that they are willingly deceived.
> A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
that they are willingly deceived.
Mitchell Holman
May 1, 2016, 10:13:15 AM5/1/16
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:WJqdnTMTUcq9kLvK...@earthlink.com:
As a "you just have to have faith" believer
why do you care about evidence?
news:WJqdnTMTUcq9kLvK...@earthlink.com:
why do you care about evidence?
Malte Runz
May 1, 2016, 10:20:14 AM5/1/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:57:45 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
>"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:17b9b6ee-a292-4922...@googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>>
>>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>>
>>> devolution.
>>>
>>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>>> quality
>>>
>>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>>
>> You have no evidence for creation.
>
>"Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins
>of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
>for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
>science ...
Except for the miracles.
> ... and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
>accurately predicts experimental findings.
>
>In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. ...
Like this:
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/
>... Evidence
>
> http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm
I've looked at the link and saw loads of familiar faeces, and unless
you pick from your bucket, I'm not going to address any of it.
--
Malte Runz
wrote:
>"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:17b9b6ee-a292-4922...@googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>>
>>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>>
>>> devolution.
>>>
>>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>>> quality
>>>
>>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>>
>> You have no evidence for creation.
>
>"Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins
>of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
>for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
Except for the miracles.
> ... and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
>accurately predicts experimental findings.
>
>In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. ...
Like this:
https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-began-at-the-fall/
>... Evidence
>shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins
>but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
>supported by evidence."
That is simply not true.
>but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
>supported by evidence."
>
> http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm
I've looked at the link and saw loads of familiar faeces, and unless
you pick from your bucket, I'm not going to address any of it.
--
Malte Runz
John Locke
May 1, 2016, 10:37:58 AM5/1/16
to
>"Cloud Hobbit" wrote in message news:17b9b6ee-a292-4922...@googlegroups.com...
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>>
>>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>>
>>> devolution.
>>>
>>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>>> quality
>>>
>>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>>
>> You have no evidence for creation.
>
>"Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins
>of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
>for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
>science and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
>accurately predicts experimental findings.
>
...scientific evidence, from multiple disciplines, supports the
>> Andrew wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>>
>>> > Your "special creation" meant everything is perfect in its created form.
>>>
>>> With no genetic defects, but since the Fall, we have been experiencing
>>>
>>> devolution.
>>>
>>> devolution - the process of declining from a higher to
>>> a lower level of complexity or essential
>>> quality
>>>
>>> This means that the "goo to you" story they told you,
>>> was a deception. Therefore you have been deceived.
>>
>> You have no evidence for creation.
>
>"Scientific evidence weighs heavily in favor for supernatural origins
>of the universe, of life, and of major groups of organisms. The model
>for creation explains the data of past events, conforms to the laws of
>science and other evidences, does not contradict known facts, and
>accurately predicts experimental findings.
>
natural formation of the universe and the emergence and evolution of
life. Creationism has been soundly rejected around the globe by every
credible university and research center. Get over it. Creationism is
very dead.
>In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. Evidence
>shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins
>but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
>supported by evidence."
>
religion. It's not falsifiable...and as such is incomparable with
science. That's why you'll never see creationism taught as part of any
science course in any credible university on the planet. Besides,
creationism/aka Intelligent design, is a very dead concept. The only
ones trying to keep it keep it alive are you and the morons at the
"Discovery Institute" (which has never really discovered anything)
Alex W.
May 1, 2016, 10:41:07 AM5/1/16
to
>
>> In contrast, evolution contradicts particular laws of science. Evidence
>> shows that creationism is not only a good scientific model for origins
>> but superior to the evolution model. Creation is soundly based on and
>> supported by evidence."
>>
> ...it IS NOT "soundly based" and supported by evidence. Creationism is
> religion. It's not falsifiable...and as such is incomparable with
> science. That's why you'll never see creationism taught as part of any
> science course in any credible university on the planet. Besides,
> creationism/aka Intelligent design, is a very dead concept. The only
> ones trying to keep it keep it alive are you and the morons at the
> "Discovery Institute" (which has never really discovered anything)
>
philosophy departments.
Astero...@yahoo.com
May 1, 2016, 11:09:49 AM5/1/16
to
>
> Seth
Wexford Eire
May 1, 2016, 11:29:11 AM5/1/16
to
Mitchell Holman
May 1, 2016, 11:34:37 AM5/1/16
to
John Locke <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote in
news:434cibh7fgo39oj2a...@4ax.com:
Here in Dallas we are home to the Institute For
Creation Research (ICR).
Which, of course, does no research.......
"All things in the universe were created and made
by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus
20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical,
and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or
development that involve evolution in any form are
false."
http://www.icr.org/tenets/
news:434cibh7fgo39oj2a...@4ax.com:
Creation Research (ICR).
Which, of course, does no research.......
"All things in the universe were created and made
by God in the six literal days of the Creation Week
described in Genesis 1:1-2:3, and confirmed in Exodus
20:8-11. The creation record is factual, historical,
and perspicuous; thus all theories of origins or
development that involve evolution in any form are
false."
http://www.icr.org/tenets/
nature bats last
May 1, 2016, 12:16:59 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:09:49 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:58:53 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > > > news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > > > >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > > > >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> > > > >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> > > > >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> > > > >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> > > > >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> > > > >> in its created form.
> > > > >
> > > > > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > > > > built into the system from the get go.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your god make imperfect life forms?
> > >
> >
.> > .> life forms were created perfect, but through the free will decisions made by man, suffering and entropy were inflicted upon the creation. My opinion in this regard is that entropy was allowed to keep us busy as a distraction against evil.
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:58:53 AM UTC-7, nature bats last wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:52:32 PM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 2:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman wrote:
> > > > Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > > > news:328bdf26-c59f-4451...@googlegroups.com:
> > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:59:28 AM UTC-7, Mitchell Holman
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> Astero...@yahoo.com wrote in
> > > > >> news:2fd8b477-4381-4b37...@googlegroups.com:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been
> > > > >> > predicted, not the future of mankind
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Evolution is not involved with predictability.
> > > > >> It is adaptation to change via random mutations.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and
> > > > >> > because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor
> > > > >> > diet, negative mutations may occur.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Creationism the oppposite of change. Your
> > > > >> "special creation" meant everything is perfect
> > > > >> in its created form.
> > > > >
> > > > > special creation merely means that the whole package of surviving was
> > > > > built into the system from the get go.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your god make imperfect life forms?
> > >
> >
> >
.> > Wow. Even Answers In Genesis thinks that's a bogus argument.
> >
.> > https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/
> >
>
.> that's their opinion. it doesn't matter because what I said works. debate it on that fact.
OK, then how about the fact that there's zero evidence for entropy
having appeared de novo at some point, but then again anyone can make
up anything that pleases them. I declare that quantum uncertainty
was not a feature of the universe before Buraq carried Mohammed
from Mecca to the Temple Mount and back in one single night.
Seth
Don Martin
May 1, 2016, 12:28:19 PM5/1/16
to
Malte Runz
May 1, 2016, 12:38:53 PM5/1/16
to
On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SOME BASAL EARLY CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES, THE
BIOGEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF THE EUTRILOBITA, AND THE TIMING OF THE
CAMBRIAN RADIATION
Read the abstract.
>> Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
>>
>
>that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true. It was likely that on the bottom see floor, which is what Precambrian represents, to have microbes.
No. No, no, no, no, no! Precambrian does not represent "the bottom sea
floor".
>
>>
>> There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
>
>no transitions have been found. ...
Yes they have. Do you want me to find images of them on the internet
for you?
> ... Pakecetus was just a land animal - that looks like a large rat, ...
And if it looks like a rat...
> ... and was just called a whale, ...
Yes, just like that. Might as well have said it was a mammoth. Or an
Oak tree!
> ... so I wonder what is called a transitional whale, here.
Would images of the fossils convince you of anything?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
>
>any bone can be linked and put together to make it be whatever the person that finds it claims it to be.
No it can't, and as a peer reviewed scientist you wouldn't get away
with it. Just think of all the many hoaxes scientists have busted.
Ever heard of Piltdown man?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
>
>
>since dinosaurs generally lived on land, and trilobites at the bottom of the sea. ...
There were many marine dinosaurs:
http://www.kids-dinosaurs.com/swimming-dinosaurs.html
And none of them, not a single one has been buried in strata that also
contain trilobites (and hundreds of thousands of other species, for
that matter). Can you explain why that is so?
> ... and dead bodies generally float and rot, and get eaten by scavengers.
Generally this, and generally that. How did you put it?
your 'general rules'.
>
>
> since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
What gave you that idea? I can't imagine that you're able to
substantiate that claim.
>
>
>life is that way.
No, it's not. In real life (TM) different species of the same subclass
live in the same habitat.
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
>>
>>
>
>you don't have to be an evolutionist to make that hypothesis.
Who else would make it? Creationists have no need for predictions.
Everything is the way it is, because God wants it to be that way.
>
>> Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
>>
>
>there is no reason to believe that evolutiondunnit is the only explanation. It makes more sense if it were planned that way.
Why? If evolutiondunnit is a possible explanation, why would it make
more sense to believe in creationism?
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
wrote:
>On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>> >
>> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>> >
>> >
>> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
>>
>> That's not exactly true though is it?
>>
>> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
>>
>>
>> Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
>
>they haven't been found. that's just an assumption.
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/0022-3360%282002%29076%3C0692%3APAOSBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
>On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
>> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
>> >
>> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
>> >
>> >
>> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
>>
>> That's not exactly true though is it?
>>
>> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
>>
>>
>> Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
>
>they haven't been found. that's just an assumption.
PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SOME BASAL EARLY CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES, THE
BIOGEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF THE EUTRILOBITA, AND THE TIMING OF THE
CAMBRIAN RADIATION
Read the abstract.
>> Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
>>
>
>that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true. It was likely that on the bottom see floor, which is what Precambrian represents, to have microbes.
floor".
>
>>
>> There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
>
Yes they have. Do you want me to find images of them on the internet
for you?
> ... Pakecetus was just a land animal - that looks like a large rat, ...
And if it looks like a rat...
> ... and was just called a whale, ...
Yes, just like that. Might as well have said it was a mammoth. Or an
Oak tree!
> ... so I wonder what is called a transitional whale, here.
Would images of the fossils convince you of anything?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
>
>any bone can be linked and put together to make it be whatever the person that finds it claims it to be.
with it. Just think of all the many hoaxes scientists have busted.
Ever heard of Piltdown man?
>
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
>
>
There were many marine dinosaurs:
http://www.kids-dinosaurs.com/swimming-dinosaurs.html
And none of them, not a single one has been buried in strata that also
contain trilobites (and hundreds of thousands of other species, for
that matter). Can you explain why that is so?
> ... and dead bodies generally float and rot, and get eaten by scavengers.
Generally this, and generally that. How did you put it?
"that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true".
"Generally" does not explain why there is not one single exception to
your 'general rules'.
>
>
> since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
substantiate that claim.
>
>
>life is that way.
No, it's not. In real life (TM) different species of the same subclass
live in the same habitat.
>
>>
>>
>> Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
>>
>>
>
>you don't have to be an evolutionist to make that hypothesis.
Everything is the way it is, because God wants it to be that way.
>
>> Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
>>
>
>there is no reason to believe that evolutiondunnit is the only explanation. It makes more sense if it were planned that way.
more sense to believe in creationism?
(snip)
--
Malte Runz
duke
May 1, 2016, 1:10:16 PM5/1/16
to
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
nature bats last
May 1, 2016, 1:41:00 PM5/1/16
to
On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 9:38:53 AM UTC-7, Malte Runz wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> >> >
> >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
> >>
> >> That's not exactly true though is it?
> >>
> >> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
> >>
> >>
.> >> Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:18:45 -0700 (PDT), Astero...@yahoo.com
> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 6:00:05 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> >> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 10:39:08 AM UTC-7, Astero...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> > Evolution: the change from monkey to man could not have been predicted, not the future of mankind
> >> >
> >> > Creationism: change is essentially inherited via genetics and because of entropy, exposure to ill environments and possible poor diet, negative mutations may occur.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Modern science finds evolution essentially useless as a predictor of future >things to come, and largely ignores it.
> >>
> >> That's not exactly true though is it?
> >>
> >> The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
> >>
> >>
> >
.> >they haven't been found. that's just an assumption.
>
.> http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1666/0022-3360%282002%29076%3C0692%3APAOSBE%3E2.0.CO%3B2
.> PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF SOME BASAL EARLY CAMBRIAN TRILOBITES, THE
.> BIOGEOGRAPHIC ORIGINS OF THE EUTRILOBITA, AND THE TIMING OF THE
.> CAMBRIAN RADIATION
>
.> Read the abstract.
When it comes to trilobites, there's one web site you want
to go to first:
http://www.trilobites.info/origins.htm
>
>
> >> Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
> >>
> >
> >that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true. It was likely that on the bottom see floor, which is what Precambrian represents, to have microbes.
>
.> No. No, no, no, no, no! Precambrian does not represent "the bottom sea
>
> >> Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
> >>
> >
> >that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true. It was likely that on the bottom see floor, which is what Precambrian represents, to have microbes.
>
.> floor".
Asteroid seems to have a bit of a problem with the concept
of Precambrian. See his thread "Crabs in early precambrian:
know your science". The "early precambrian" would start with the
Hadean. Not a lot of "crabs" there. Or anything else for that matter.
In any event, not all Precambrian fossils were microscopic.
Here's one from the Ediacaran:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/DickinsoniaCostata.jpg
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
> >
> >no transitions have been found. ...
>
> Yes they have. Do you want me to find images of them on the internet
> for you?
>
>
>
.> And if it looks like a rat...
>
>
.> > ... and was just called a whale, ...
>
.> Yes, just like that. Might as well have said it was a mammoth. Or an
.> Oak tree!
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/whale_evo.jpg
>
>
> > ... so I wonder what is called a transitional whale, here.
>
> Would images of the fossils convince you of anything?
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
> >
>
.> No it can't, and as a peer reviewed scientist you wouldn't get away
.> with it. Just think of all the many hoaxes scientists have busted.
.> Ever heard of Piltdown man?
Paleontologists are all too aware of faked Cretaceous fossils
from the Liaoning region in China. If you could just throw any
old bones together anyway you want, then why are paleontologists
issuing warnings about this cottage industry in that desperately
poor region?
>
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
> >
> >
> >since dinosaurs generally lived on land, and trilobites at the bottom of the sea. ...
>
> There were many marine dinosaurs:
> http://www.kids-dinosaurs.com/swimming-dinosaurs.html
>
> And none of them, not a single one has been buried in strata that also
> contain trilobites (and hundreds of thousands of other species, for
> that matter). Can you explain why that is so?
>
>
.> > ... and dead bodies generally float and rot, and get eaten by scavengers.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs,
> >
> >
> >since dinosaurs generally lived on land, and trilobites at the bottom of the sea. ...
>
> There were many marine dinosaurs:
> http://www.kids-dinosaurs.com/swimming-dinosaurs.html
>
> And none of them, not a single one has been buried in strata that also
> contain trilobites (and hundreds of thousands of other species, for
> that matter). Can you explain why that is so?
>
>
>
.> Generally this, and generally that. How did you put it?
.> "that's too general of a prediction and too likely to be true".
Were Asteroid's claims true, then we should find all the
large animals in the same strata: T rexes mixed with elephants
mixed with giant ground sloths alongside velociraptors and
sabertooths because, as we learn in Stephen King's "It",
"We all float down here". But we don't even find Triassic
dinosaurs such as Eoraptor mixes in with Cretaceous ones
such as Triceratops. Nope, that claim just won't float.
Wexford Eire
May 1, 2016, 5:12:06 PM5/1/16
to
nature bats last
May 1, 2016, 5:57:25 PM5/1/16
to
Thinking back, I don't think I was taught any evolutionary biology in high
school or in college; anything I may know I learned myself from reading.
And of course the same the same thing goes for all the exciting developments
in biology since those days, from automated DNA sequencing to phylogenomics
to cladistics to CRISPR-Cas9. Similarly for physics; the little quantum physics
I was taught was limited to things like the Pauling exclusion principle and
the Schrodinger wave equation. Everything else I've heard about I
learned from reading.
Which anyone can do. These days more than ever before in history.
Seth
Jeanne Douglas
May 1, 2016, 8:30:54 PM5/1/16
to
Wexford Eire
May 1, 2016, 9:18:53 PM5/1/16
to
> And of course the same the same thing goes for all the exciting developments
> in biology since those days, from automated DNA sequencing to phylogenomics
> to cladistics to CRISPR-Cas9. Similarly for physics; the little quantum physics
> I was taught was limited to things like the Pauling exclusion principle and
> the Schrodinger wave equation. Everything else I've heard about I
> learned from reading.
>
> Which anyone can do. These days more than ever before in history.
nature bats last
May 1, 2016, 9:27:28 PM5/1/16
to
You were a few years younger than I. Although probably locale matters
more than the exact period. And then at Duke I was never taught
any evolutionary biology per se; it was just assumed.
>
> > And of course the same the same thing goes for all the exciting developments
> > in biology since those days, from automated DNA sequencing to phylogenomics
> > to cladistics to CRISPR-Cas9. Similarly for physics; the little quantum physics
> > I was taught was limited to things like the Pauling exclusion principle and
> > the Schrodinger wave equation. Everything else I've heard about I
> > learned from reading.
> >
> > Which anyone can do. These days more than ever before in history.
>
.> What's your point? Some people can self-educate. Not Astro. One doesn't self-educate by getting all your information from Creationist sources.
> > And of course the same the same thing goes for all the exciting developments
> > in biology since those days, from automated DNA sequencing to phylogenomics
> > to cladistics to CRISPR-Cas9. Similarly for physics; the little quantum physics
> > I was taught was limited to things like the Pauling exclusion principle and
> > the Schrodinger wave equation. Everything else I've heard about I
> > learned from reading.
> >
> > Which anyone can do. These days more than ever before in history.
>
Yep, that's exactly my point. It's all out there for the taking. But
some are simply to incurious to bother with it.
Seth
Alex W.
May 2, 2016, 3:31:11 AM5/2/16
to
Mitchell Holman
May 2, 2016, 8:46:40 AM5/2/16
to
"Alex W." <ing...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:dooe1sFhrjsU3
@mid.individual.net:
Fools and their money are soon parted.
@mid.individual.net:
Andrew
May 2, 2016, 2:17:37 PM5/2/16
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA5FB5CEEDE2...@216.166.97.131...
> why do you care about evidence?
The point above is that, in general, atheists have
no criteria for evidence to be acceptable to them.
Which tells us that they are *willingly* deceived.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
>>
>>> A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
>>
>> I found that, in general, atheists have no criteria for
>> evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
>> that they are willingly deceived.
>>
> As a "you just have to have faith" believer
Not me.
>>
>> I found that, in general, atheists have no criteria for
>> evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
>> that they are willingly deceived.
>>
> As a "you just have to have faith" believer
> why do you care about evidence?
no criteria for evidence to be acceptable to them.
Which tells us that they are *willingly* deceived.
nature bats last
May 2, 2016, 2:55:28 PM5/2/16
to
On Monday, May 2, 2016 at 11:17:37 AM UTC-7, Andrew wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA5FB5CEEDE2...@216.166.97.131...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>
> >>> A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
> >>
> >> I found that, in general, atheists have no criteria for
> >> evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
> >> that they are willingly deceived.
> >>
> > As a "you just have to have faith" believer
>
> Not me.
>
> > why do you care about evidence?
>
.> The point above is that, in general, atheists have
> "Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA5FB5CEEDE2...@216.166.97.131...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" wrote:
> >>
> >>> A claim there is evidence does not constitute evidence.
> >>
> >> I found that, in general, atheists have no criteria for
> >> evidence to be satisfactory for them, which indicates
> >> that they are willingly deceived.
> >>
> > As a "you just have to have faith" believer
>
> Not me.
>
> > why do you care about evidence?
>
.> no criteria for evidence to be acceptable to them.
I've explained my take on that to you.
Still waiting for you to get back to me on that.
Seth
Christopher A. Lee
May 2, 2016, 4:00:34 PM5/2/16
to
And it's nothing to do with whether or nor we are atheists -
"evidence" is another of the everyday words that Christians have
redefined , so it no longer means facts leading to a conclusion, such
that both the facts and the conclusion can be defended as such - in
their version of Orwellian newspeak it now means whatever they say is
evidence and doesn't need to be defended such.
Tim
May 2, 2016, 6:13:06 PM5/2/16
to
Alas, you theist twits can't put up and won't shut up.
>
> Which tells us that they are *willingly* deceived.
Olrik
May 2, 2016, 11:55:03 PM5/2/16
to
--
Olrik
aa #1981
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
0 new messages