Human Intelligence Declining - Upward Evolution a Hoax

[Andrew]

Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

The truth is that we started with a perfect
genome when we were created by God at
the Beginning.

Since then the human race has suffered
the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
now see from the evidence

http://www.p2l.it/1n5

However God has a plan of eternal
restoration for all of those who
may be interested.


Andrew

[Freedom Man]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in message
news:EMOdnbxj77Vjk6PM...@earthlink.com...

> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.

True in YOUR brainwashed mind, perhaps!

> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>
> However God has a plan of eternal
> restoration for all of those who
> may be interested.

Yeah, right!

See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?

Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.

"We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of love
and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely kind
intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell." --- Karl Popper

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many
people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion."
--- Robert M. Pirsig

Either God wants to abolish evil and cannot, or he can but does not want to.
If he wants to but cannot he is impotent. If he can but does not want to, he
is wicked. If he neither can nor wants to, then he is both powerless and
wicked.
--- Epicurus, Greek philosopher, circa 300 B.C.

"Act of God" disasters like the Japanese earthquake expose the myth. Either
God can do nothing to stop catastrophes like this, or he doesn't care to, or
he doesn't exist. He is thus either impotent, evil, or imaginary.
--- CNN Belief Blog, 3-20-11

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and
evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that
takes religion."
--- Steven Weinberg, quoted in The New York Times, April 20, 1999

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false,
and by rulers as useful."
--- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)

"Religion once ruled the world. It was called the Dark Ages." --- Ruth
Green.

"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings." ---
Victor Stenger.

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Mother Goose." ---
Clarence Darrow

"As my ancestors are free from slavery, I am free from the slavery of
religion." --- Butterfly McQueen

"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool." - Mark
Twain

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so." --- Mark Twain

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in
all fiction." --- Richard Dawkins

"Cult today, religion tomorrow."

The Freedom From Religion Foundation: http://ffrf.org/
The Secular Coalition for America: www.secular.org
Secular Student Alliance: www.secularstudents.org
www.infidels.org
www.humaniststudies.org
www.atheistalliance.org
www.americanhumanist.org

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/11/2013 12:08 PM, Andrew wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

There is no 'upward evolution'; there is only evolution. Evolution is
non-directional; it fits the population to the environment in which it
finds itself. I wonder whether you will ever get that. Or, perhaps, you
get it just fine, but need directional, ever-'upward', change to use as
a straw man argument. The first is ignorance; the second is mendacity.

Of course, there is nothing that says you can't be ignorant and a liar
at the same time.

[Davej]

On Mar 11, 12:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>

Evolution says that if idiots produce more children then they win.

[raven1]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

Evolution has no direction in mind.

>The truth is that we started with a perfect
>genome when we were created by God at
>the Beginning.

Evidence?

>Since then the human race has suffered
>the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>now see from the evidence
>
> http://www.p2l.it/1n5

Did you miss this part?

"According to the doctor, humans were at their most intelligent when
“every individual was exposed to nature’s raw selective mechanisms on
a daily basis.” ". In other words, technological advances have stopped
stupid people from being killed off early. I hope you're suitably
grateful.

[sbalneav]

In alt.atheism Andrew <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,

If the statistical sample of theists here in alt.atheism are anything to go
by, I'll agree.


--
(` |) | Frustra fit per plura quod potest
_) |) | fieri per pauciora.
a.a #2171 | -- William of Occam. (c. 1323)

[Syd M.]

On Mar 11, 1:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
>

'Upward evolution' IS a hoax, Andrew. It has no scientific basis, it's
just a straw man for idiots like you.

PDW

[Syd M.]

On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>

Of course he did. It doesn't say what he wants to hear.

PDW

[J]

The topic is 'intelligence', a subject which you are unqualified to
comment.



J Young
jdyo...@ymail.com

[casey]

On Mar 12, 5:16 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>

We may have been evolving a social intelligence?

Although the average intelligence might be going down that
doesn't mean that among us there are not exceptional brains
at work.

Dogs are less intelligent than wolves when it comes to extracting
food from a cage. Instead the dog turns to the human for help.
Dogs have however evolved the ability to read people in a
way a wolf cannot. A wolf I think has a bigger brain as it has to
defend for itself.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution. There's only
adaptation, and it's non-directional. Populations of animals un-
evolve things their parent populations developed all the time. That's
where you get things like blind cave fish. If you knew anything about
evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.

<Snip creationist babble>

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[Gordon]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:07:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
wrote:

>On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
>There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution. There's only
>adaptation, and it's non-directional. Populations of animals un-
>evolve things their parent populations developed all the time. That's
>where you get things like blind cave fish. If you knew anything about
>evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>

Upward as toward a generally higher level IQ.

Downward as toward a generally lower level IQ.

What's so hard to figure out about this?

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:20:22 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

Once again Gordon confirms just how much of a moron he is.

Get an education and stop embarrassing yourself.

[MarkA]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, Andrew wrote:

> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.
>
> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>

I looked at the article at the link. Sounds like the premise of the
movie, "Idiocracy".

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:38:04 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, Andrew wrote:
>
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>>
>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>>
>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>
>
>I looked at the article at the link. Sounds like the premise of the
>movie, "Idiocracy".

Frederick Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth each wrote about the same theme,
but in theirs there was an intelligent group that looked after the
idiots.

[Immortalist]

On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.
>

...all progress seen in life and society is a human-induced illusion.
The prevalent notion of a "ladder of progress" or a "great chain of
being" in biology doesn't hold up under the facts of geological
history.

Start with the first instance of life as the initial point. In a
visual metaphor, imagine all descendants of that first life forming a
slowly inflating sphere. The radius is time. Each creature alive at a
given time becomes a spot on the surface of the sphere at that time.

At the 4-billion-year mark (today's date), the globe of life on Earth
shows some 30 million species cramming its circumference. One dot, for
example, represents humans; another dot on far side of the sphere, the
bacterium E. coli. All points on the sphere are equidistant from the
first life; therefore none is superior to the other. All creatures on
the globe at any one time are equally evolved, having engaged in
evolution for an equal amount of time. To put it bluntly, humans are
no more evolved than most bacteria.

Gazing at this spherical graph, it is hard to imagine how one spot,
the humans, could somehow be the apex of the entire globe. Perhaps any
of the other 30 million coevolved spots-say, the flamingo, or poison
oak-are the whole point of evolution. As life explores new niches, the
whole globe expands, increasing the number of coevolved positions.

The globe graph of life quietly undermines the recurring image of
progressive evolution: that of life beginning as a blob and climbing
the ladder of success to the pinnacle of humanness. That image leaves
out a billion other ladders that should be in the picture, including
the all-too-common story of life as a blob climbing a ladder-going-
nowhere to the pinnacle of a slightly different blob. In nature, there
is no pinnacle, just a billion-spotted sphere. It doesn't matter what
you do as long as you make it.

Hanging out and staying the same works too. There are many more cases
of species who spent their evolutionary time treading water than who
spent it transforming radically. The rewards are identical, however.
Both Homo sapiens and E. coli are elite cosurvivors. And neither
particularly has an advantage over the other in surviving the next
million years. (Actually, some pessimists give E. coli 100-to-1 odds
on outliving humans, even though E. coli can currently live only in
our guts.)....

http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch21-a.html

> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>

Wrong. That there is a Red Herring and it appears easy to rub your
face in it. didn't your papa ever teach you that when an irrelevant
topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original
issue, the basic idea being to "win" an argument by leading attention
away from the argument and to another topic. Evolution is true or
false dip ship like 2+2=4 and has nothing to do with how something is
evolving.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the
topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

> However God has a plan of eternal
> restoration for all of those who
> may be interested.
>
> Andrew

His plan is to make you pay money to set and get bored by the likes of
this goofee ape.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDRtDhqLKsw

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <EMOdnbxj77Vjk6PM...@earthlink.com>,

What a load of crap.

--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <g6nsj8p4kto8r3dua...@4ax.com>,

Yep. The story was "The Marching Morons".

[Christopher A. Lee]

Pohl's was the last section of a novel called "Search the Sky" which
was about genetic inbreeding in small colonies. with the hero trying
to find Earth. When he got there he found a society rather like that
in Marching Morons.

[Andrew]

"SkyEyes" wrote in message news:6882da8d-3341-4cc6...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.

It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary
teaching of universal common descent.But genetic
entropy is undeniable.

> There's only adaptation, and it's non-directional.

Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.

> Populations of animals un- evolve things their parent
> populations developed all the time.

And their progeny cannot go back, because of
the *loss* of genetic information. Right? Yes.

> That's where you get things like blind cave fish.

I understand that.

> If you knew anything about
> evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.

I just said that I concur with what you said.

> <Snip creationist babble>

Nevertheless the truth remains.................
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Bjo%s.260443$kp4.1...@newsfe09.iad...

> On 3/11/2013 12:08 PM, Andrew wrote:
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> There is no 'upward evolution'; there is only evolution.
> Evolution is non-directional; it fits the population to
> the environment in which it finds itself.

The general theory states that, all life we see today
has descended from a common primitive ancestor.

So the complex life forms that we see today have
descended from ancient primitive and very simple
life forms - according to what is being taught, to
the gullible who have accepted it.

> I wonder whether you will ever get that.

What you stated above is true in fact, but that
is not what is being taught. It appears that you
have rejected the doctrine of common descent.

> Or, perhaps, you get it just fine, but need
> directional, ever-'upward', change to use
> as a straw man argument.

Then explain universal common descent,
and why you reject it.

> The first is ignorance; the second
> is mendacity.
>
> Of course, there is nothing that says you
> can't be ignorant and a liar at the same time.

An ad hom is evidence that your argue from
a false position.

>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>>
>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>>
>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>
>> However God has a plan of eternal
>> restoration for all of those who
>> may be interested.

Yes, this is true.

[Andrew]

"Freedom Man" wrote in message news:khl38k$4ad$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>
> True in YOUR brainwashed mind, perhaps!

The fact of genetic entropy points to the fact
that there was a time when our genome was
without imperfection.

>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>>
>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>
>> However God has a plan of eternal
>> restoration for all of those who
>> may be interested.
>
> Yeah, right!
>
> See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>
> Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
> kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>
> "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
> love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely
> kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell."--- Karl Popper

Thanks for the citation, because the truth of what he said is a direct fulfilment
of the prophecy of our Lord and Savior Jesus, Son of the Most High God who
is the Maker of heaven and earth.

"These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble..
yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God
service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known
the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you that when the time comes,
you may remember that I told you of them." ~ John 16 ~

So what you are stating, is a conformation of the veracity of His prediction.

Thanks.

Andrew

[Andrew]

"Syd M." <pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:58c906db-8f03-4219...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 11, 1:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

-
- 'Upward evolution' IS a hoax, Andrew. It has no scientific basis,

They call it universal common descent.

I concur, it -IS- a hoax!

[Andrew]

"MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2013.03.11....@somewhere.invalid...

> Andrew wrote:
>
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>>
>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>>
>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>
> I looked at the article at the link. Sounds
> like the premise of the movie, "Idiocracy".

The evidence was a little too
heavy for you at this time??

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-BC4106...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>>
>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>>
>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>
>> However God has a plan of eternal
>> restoration for all of those who
>> may be interested.
>
> What a load of crap.

Why?

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

;

> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

Not really.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/grrlscientist/2012/nov/14/1

though frankly I wonder why I even bothered
reading beyond "upward evolution", little poseur.


NBL

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <q_GdnejUPf9xAqPM...@earthlink.com>,

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:

> "Freedom Man" wrote in message news:khl38k$4ad$1...@dont-email.me...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
> >>
> >> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> >> genome when we were created by God at
> >> the Beginning.
> >
> > True in YOUR brainwashed mind, perhaps!
>
> The fact of genetic entropy points to the fact
> that there was a time when our genome was
> without imperfection.

Wow. More idiocy from you.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <GJednVhT7ut0PqPM...@earthlink.com>,

Because you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that this god thing
of yours even exists.

[SkyEyes]

On Mar 11, 8:25 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:6882da8d-3341-4cc6...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> > There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.
>
> It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary
> teaching of universal common descent.

No, I accept common descent. The problem is *yours*: you do not
understand that evolution is directionless. It doesn't go "higher" or
"lower," it simply adapts populations to the environment they find
themselves in.

> But genetic
> entropy is undeniable.

It's very deniable. I deny it. Evolution is directionless.

>
> > There's only  adaptation, and it's non-directional.
>
> Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.

It isn't directional *at all*. It simply adapts populations of
organisms to their current environments.

>
> > Populations of animals un- evolve things their parent
> > populations developed all the time.
>
> And their progeny cannot go back, because of
> the *loss* of genetic information. Right? Yes.

There is no "back," per se. Some populations of organisms gain
information. Some lose it. There was no time when genomes were
"perfect."

>
> > That's where you get things like blind cave fish.
>
> I understand that.

I don't think you do.

>
> > If you knew anything about
> > evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>
> I just said that I concur with what you said.
>
> > <Snip creationist babble>
>
> Nevertheless the truth remains.................
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.

Prove it.

>
> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
>            http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>
> However God has a plan of eternal
> restoration for all of those who
> may be interested.

Horse pucky. There's no such thing as a "perfect" genome for *any*
population, and there never was.

[hypatiab7]

> jdyou...@ymail.com

Look who's talking. Bwahahahahahahahaha!

[%]

yea , you are

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 11, 8:25 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:

> "SkyEyes" wrote in messagenews:6882da8d-3341-4cc6...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>

;
> > There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.

;
> It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary
> teaching of universal common descent.

If she did, it's nowhere in her reply to you.

;

> But genetic
> entropy is undeniable.

And apparently undefinable as well, given
that you're the one and only person I've
ever heard use that phrase. And I read a LOT
of biology.

But go ahead, let's hear your definition
of "genetic entropy".

>
> > There's only  adaptation, and it's non-directional.
>

;
> Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.

Define "directional" in this context; then we'll talk.

>
> > Populations of animals un- evolve things their parent
> > populations developed all the time.

;
> And their progeny cannot go back, because of
> the *loss* of genetic information. Right?

Yep, loss. And gain. And modification. And
acquisition. You can't step in the same river
twice.


;
> Yes.


Oops, sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your
monolog with yourself there...

>
> > That's where you get things like blind cave fish.
>
> I understand that.
>
> > If you knew anything about
> > evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>
> I just said that I concur with what you said.
>
> > <Snip creationist babble>

;
> Nevertheless the truth remains.................
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.
>

;
> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
>            http://www.p2l.it/1n5

And rebutted -- see my later post.

NBL

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 11, 8:26 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:Bjo%s.260443$kp4.1...@newsfe09.iad...

OK, show of hands: does anyone, anyone
at all here understand why zany Andy equates
rejection of directionality in evolution with denial
of a LUCA? Because I haven't Clue One.


NBL

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<341e5a0b-c910-43b6...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

How can people so unself-aware actually survive in the real world. I
don't understand it.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article
<d9c26703-ffbb-45e0...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Why do they believe so many things that just defy all fact? I try and I
try but I just can't understand such stunted thinking.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Monday, 11 March 2013 22:20:22 UTC, Gordon wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:07:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>
> >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>
> >
>
> >There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution. There's only
>
> >adaptation, and it's non-directional. Populations of animals un-
>
> >evolve things their parent populations developed all the time. That's
>
> >where you get things like blind cave fish. If you knew anything about
>
> >evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>
> >
>
> Upward as toward a generally higher level IQ.
>

In general, functioning well in the context of society doesn't have that much to do with the ability to score well in IQ tests. There are many aspects of intelligence, there are even two, more or less independent, thinking engines in the human brain.

Survival in a less civilised environment has more to do with "intuitive" thinking, because there is often no time for deliberative thinking. So we may expect some evolutionary pressure towards more deliberative, and less intuitive thinking ability.

Doing well in a civilised environment probably more to do with good impulse control, that reasoning ability, and I think there's some reason to believe that impulse control may have somewhat improved over the last few centuries.

Your problem is that your creating an anthropomorphised version of the ToE to attack, assuming that it's goals are what you imagine your goals would be in its place. But evolution doesn't really have goals of that sort. It acts to populate as many ecological niches as possible. It doesn't play favorites.

Even if you want to regard "degree of evolution" (as in distance from the common ancestors) as a factor, we don't score well. A horse has more differences from the primitive insectivores than a man.

[Tom McDonald]

On 3/11/2013 10:26 PM, Andrew wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:Bjo%s.260443$kp4.1...@newsfe09.iad...
>> On 3/11/2013 12:08 PM, Andrew wrote:
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> There is no 'upward evolution'; there is only evolution.
>> Evolution is non-directional; it fits the population to
>> the environment in which it finds itself.
>
> The general theory states that, all life we see today
> has descended from a common primitive ancestor.

Right.

> So the complex life forms that we see today have
> descended from ancient primitive and very simple
> life forms - according to what is being taught, to
> the gullible who have accepted it.

Right. Except for the 'gullible' business. But that does not mean that
there is some notional trajectory of constantly increasing complexity.
It only means that life started out simple, with some evolutionary lines
(though not all by any means) developing significant complexity, and
each step involving selecting the most fit for the environment to better
survive to leave offspring who themselves better survive to leave
offspring in their due season.

>> I wonder whether you will ever get that.
>
> What you stated above is true in fact, but that
> is not what is being taught.

Depends on whom you listen to. If you listen to evolutionary scientists,
they teach what I wrote. If you listen to popular scientific journalism,
or to creationists with an agenda, you might well be being taught
something else.

> It appears that you
> have rejected the doctrine of common descent.

Not in the slightest. I merely understand that evolution is
non-directional in terms of complexity.

>> Or, perhaps, you get it just fine, but need
>> directional, ever-'upward', change to use
>> as a straw man argument.
>
> Then explain universal common descent,
> and why you reject it.

That's your misunderstanding of what I wrote, and of evolution. I
certainly don't reject universal common descent.

>> The first is ignorance; the second
>> is mendacity.
>>
>> Of course, there is nothing that says you
>> can't be ignorant and a liar at the same time.
>
> An ad hom is evidence that your argue from
> a false position.

No, it is evidence that I can get frustrated with you when you
misunderstand, intentionally or otherwise, what I wrote or what
evolution really means. Even if I did ad hom you on a side issue, that
wouldn't mean that my main argument was false.

>>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>>> genome when we were created by God at
>>> the Beginning.
>>>
>>> Since then the human race has suffered
>>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>>> now see from the evidence
>>>
>>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>>
>>> However God has a plan of eternal
>>> restoration for all of those who
>>> may be interested.
>
> Yes, this is true.
>

Well, at least you agree with yourself.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-57FEA6...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>> nature bats_last wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:

The fact part of evolution is not the part that
is defied.

[Tom McDonald]

He appears to conflate the fact of a general increase in complexity of
life in the early biosphere with some notional law that states every
evolutionary change must lead to an increase of complexity in every case
going forward. It would seem to be related to the common creationist
meme that evolution must necessarily result in an increase of
information in the genome at every step.

[Andrew]

"nature bats_last" wrote in message news:d9c26703-ffbb-45e0...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

"Andrew" wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" wrote:

-
- OK, show of hands:

Many times ~the majority~ are in error.
Therefore if one prefers error because
truth is uncomfortable to them, then it
will be easy to find others for support.

- does anyone, anyone at all here understand
- why zany Andy equates rejection of
- directionality in evolution with denial
- of a LUCA?

Explain why you believe we are genetically
*superior* to our supposed LUCA.

Also what is your understanding of the
doctrine of universal common descent,
and what is the proven mechanism thereof?

Then please explain (without using fantasy)
*the mechanism* of how evolution can
develop irreducibly complex life systems,
without directionality.

Thanks.

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

> nature bats_last wrote:
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote:

Not at every step, but, in the big picture.

Isn't that how the story goes?

"Evolutionary change" IS going on all the time,
all in harmony with the known laws of genetics.

The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.

Each new generation that follows the one before
it has a slightly more disordered genetic make up
than the one before. This is called genetic entropy.

[Tom McDonald]

No. When new environmental niches open up, and when adapting to them
would be facilitated by increasing complexity (cf: the Cambrian
'explosion'), then we tend to see relatively generalized increases in
complexity. In more stable ecosystems, with niches generally changing
very gradually, then complexity may increase, decrease, or remain
roughly the same.

> Isn't that how the story goes?

No. But I can see how you need it to be in order for you to use it as a
premise in a logical argument against evolution. The premise is false,
but it looks all sciency and stuff to the unwashed.

> "Evolutionary change" IS going on all the time,
> all in harmony with the known laws of genetics.

Yup.

> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
> infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
> more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.

Would do, in the absence of a filtering mechanism to reduce or eliminate
the effects of such 'imperfections'. Fortunately for us, unfortunately
for you, we do have such a filtering mechanism.

> Each new generation that follows the one before
> it has a slightly more disordered genetic make up
> than the one before. This is called genetic entropy.
>

Without a filter, you'd be on the right track. Can you see the flaw in
that argument?

[casey]

On Mar 12, 10:51 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> [...]

> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
> infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
> more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.

No, genetic variations that produce "imperfections"
are selected against and become less numerous
while genetic variations that produce "perfections"
are selected for and become more numerous.

[MarkA]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:40:37 -0700, Christopher A. Lee wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:38:04 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

> wrote:

>
>>On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, Andrew wrote:
>>
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving, and that upward evolution has
>>> been a hoax.
>>>

>>> The truth is that we started with a perfect genome when we were created
>>> by God at the Beginning.
>>>
>>> Since then the human race has suffered the effects of genetic entropy,
>>> as we can now see from the evidence
>>>
>>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>>
>>>

>>I looked at the article at the link. Sounds like the premise of the
>>movie, "Idiocracy".
>

> Frederick Pohl and Cyril Kornbluth each wrote about the same theme, but in
> theirs there was an intelligent group that looked after the idiots.

That sounds like the relationship between the Morlocks and the Eloi in The
Time Machine. We're supposed to have sympathy for the Eloi, but they were
actually more like cattle than people. It's just too bad that the
Morlocks lost the science of orthodontics.

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[MarkA]

Evidence?? You are actually using the word "evidence" in a sentence??
Get the smelling salts!

[MarkA]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:20:22 -0500, Gordon wrote:

> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:07:20 -0700 (PDT), SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>

>>On Mar 11, 10:08�am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving, and that upward evolution has
>>> been a hoax.
>>

>>There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution. There's only
>>adaptation, and it's non-directional. Populations of animals un- evolve
>>things their parent populations developed all the time. That's where you
>>get things like blind cave fish. If you knew anything about evolution
>>(which you don't), you'd know this.
>>
> Upward as toward a generally higher level IQ.
>

> Downward as toward a generally lower level IQ.
>
> What's so hard to figure out about this?

What is "IQ"? The only accurate answer is, "What IQ tests measure".
It has very little to do with "intelligence", which is notoriously hard to
define, let alone measure.

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:QuCdnScgR8UcAqPM...@earthlink.com:

> "SkyEyes" wrote in message
> news:6882da8d-3341-4cc6...@oz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com.
> ..

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>
>> There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.
>

> It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary

> teaching of universal common descent.But genetic
> entropy is undeniable.

>
>> There's only adaptation, and it's non-directional.
>

> Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.
>

>> Populations of animals un- evolve things their parent
>> populations developed all the time.
>

> And their progeny cannot go back, because of

> the *loss* of genetic information. Right? Yes.

>
>> That's where you get things like blind cave fish.
>

> I understand that.

>
>> If you knew anything about
>> evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>

> I just said that I concur with what you said.
>
>> <Snip creationist babble>
>
> Nevertheless the truth remains.................
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.
>
> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence

Why did god create "genetic entropy"?

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Tuesday, 12 March 2013 13:10:02 UTC, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> Why did god create "genetic entropy"?

Presumably to make sure we didn't do any progressing on our own.

[MarkA]

Are you sure he didn't mean "genetic atrophy"?

[MarkA]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:35:58 -0700, Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> In article
> <341e5a0b-c910-43b6...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> hypatiab7 <hypa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 4:09 pm, J <jdyou...@ymail.com> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:54:02 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > >On Mar 11, 2:16 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> > >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:08:37 -0700, "Andrew"
>> > >> <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >> >Evidence shows that humans are devolving, and that upward
>> > >> >evolution has been a hoax.
>> >
>> > >> Evolution has no direction in mind.
>> >
>> > >> >The truth is that we started with a perfect genome when we were
>> > >> >created by God at the Beginning.
>> >
>> > >> Evidence?
>> >
>> > >> >Since then the human race has suffered the effects of genetic
>> > >> >entropy, as we can now see from the evidence
>> >
>> > >> >          http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>> >
>> > >> Did you miss this part?
>> >
>> > >> "According to the doctor, humans were at their most intelligent

>> > >> when łevery individual was exposed to natureąs raw selective

>> > >> mechanisms on a daily basis.˛ ". In other words, technological
>> > >> advances have stopped stupid people from being killed off early. I
>> > >> hope you're suitably grateful.
>> >
>> > >Of course he did. It doesn't say what he wants to hear.
>> >
>> > >PDW
>> >
>> > The topic is 'intelligence', a subject which you are unqualified to
>> > comment.
>> >
>> > J Young
>> > jdyou...@ymail.com
>>
>> Look who's talking. Bwahahahahahahahaha!
>
> How can people so unself-aware actually survive in the real world. I don't
> understand it.

That's the downside of having a government that looks after the interests
of the people. It's one of those "unintended consequences" things.

[MarkA]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:51:32 -0700, Andrew wrote:


>
> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing infirmities and
> deformities that afflict us become more numerous and cumulative as time
> goes on.
>
> Each new generation that follows the one before it has a slightly more
> disordered genetic make up than the one before. This is called genetic
> entropy.

No, it's called "diversity", and is invaluable when the environment
changes. Populations with greater genetic diversity have more
opportunities to adapt to the changes, and become more successful.

You (that is, creationists) seem to have this notion that the world, and
everything in it, started out "perfect", and is now deteriorating as a
result of "The Fall of Man". However, our genomes are not deteriorating,
they, like everything, accumulate greater variation, that may be selected
for or against, depending on circumstances.

[Gordon]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:51:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:

>"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...
>> nature bats_last wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> He appears to conflate the fact of a general increase
>> in complexity of life in the early biosphere with some
>> notional law that states every evolutionary change must
>> lead to an increase of complexity in every case going
>> forward. It would seem to be related to the common
>> creationist meme that evolution must necessarily result
>> in an increase of information in the genome at every step.
>
>Not at every step, but, in the big picture.
>
>Isn't that how the story goes?
>
>"Evolutionary change" IS going on all the time,
>all in harmony with the known laws of genetics.
>
>The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
>infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
>more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.
>
>Each new generation that follows the one before
>it has a slightly more disordered genetic make up
>than the one before. This is called genetic entropy.
>

True, indeed, unless there is some form of intelligence in control,
such as the selective breeding of our domestic animals, and God's
intervention into the "evolution" of humans into a higher level of
intelligence and communicative abilities than the other animals.

Gordon

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:01:41 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:51:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
>wrote:
>
>>"Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...
>>> nature bats_last wrote:
><snip>
>>>
>>> He appears to conflate the fact of a general increase
>>> in complexity of life in the early biosphere with some
>>> notional law that states every evolutionary change must
>>> lead to an increase of complexity in every case going
>>> forward. It would seem to be related to the common
>>> creationist meme that evolution must necessarily result
>>> in an increase of information in the genome at every step.
>>
>>Not at every step, but, in the big picture.
>>
>>Isn't that how the story goes?
>>
>>"Evolutionary change" IS going on all the time,
>>all in harmony with the known laws of genetics.
>>
>>The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
>>infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
>>more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.
>>
>>Each new generation that follows the one before
>>it has a slightly more disordered genetic make up
>>than the one before. This is called genetic entropy.
>>
>True,

No, pig-ignorant, lying moron who supports another.

> indeed, unless there is some form of intelligence in control,
>such as the selective breeding of our domestic animals, and God's

What "God" in the real world outside your deluded fantasies,
question-begging moron?

>intervention into the "evolution" of humans into a higher level of
>intelligence and communicative abilities than the other animals.

Liar.

>Gordon

Idiot.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <F5qdnZXxDtbnkKLM...@earthlink.com>,

Wow, you just described yourself perfectly. The tragedy is that you
don't realize that.

> Then please explain (without using fantasy)
> *the mechanism* of how evolution can
> develop irreducibly complex life systems,
> without directionality.

Who said it did?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <iL-dndN5m_3_i6LM...@earthlink.com>,

Let's see your evidence for this bizarre notion. Peer-reviewed
scientific articles only, please.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:27:00 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

>"Freedom Man" wrote in message news:khl38k$4ad$1...@dont-email.me...

>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>>

>>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>>> genome when we were created by God at
>>> the Beginning.
>>

>> True in YOUR brainwashed mind, perhaps!
>
>The fact of genetic entropy points to the fact
>that there was a time when our genome was
>without imperfection.

Nope. Not even remotely accurate.


Genes have been chanchanging ever since they developed with early life.
We might as well say that we are defective prokaryotes.

>>> Since then the human race has suffered
>>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>>> now see from the evidence
>>>
>>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>>
>>> However God has a plan of eternal
>>> restoration for all of those who
>>> may be interested.
>>

>> Yeah, right!
>>
>> See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>>
>> Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
>> kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>>
>> "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
>> love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely
>> kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell."--- Karl Popper
>
>Thanks for the citation, because the truth of what he said is a direct fulfilment
>of the prophecy of our Lord and Savior Jesus, Son of the Most High God who
>is the Maker of heaven and earth.

Your claims about Jesus are totally without supporting evidence.
>
>"These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble..
>yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God
>service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known
>the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you that when the time comes,
>you may remember that I told you of them." ~ John 16 ~
>
>So what you are stating, is a conformation of the veracity of His prediction.
>
> Thanks.
>
>Andrew
>

[Ralph]

On 3/11/2013 11:27 PM, Andrew wrote:

> "Freedom Man" wrote in message news:khl38k$4ad$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>>
>>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>>> genome when we were created by God at
>>> the Beginning.
>> True in YOUR brainwashed mind, perhaps!
> The fact of genetic entropy points to the fact
> that there was a time when our genome was
> without imperfection.
>

>>> Since then the human race has suffered
>>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>>> now see from the evidence
>>>
>>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>>
>>> However God has a plan of eternal
>>> restoration for all of those who
>>> may be interested.
>> Yeah, right!
>>
>> See what RELIGION does to peoples' minds?
>>
>> Adults no longer believe in the Tooth Fairy - but they still torture and
>> kill each other over ancient myths and superstitions.
>>
>> "We all remember how many religious wars were fought for a religion of
>> love and gentleness; how many bodies were burned alive with the genuinely
>> kind intention of saving souls from the eternal fire of hell."--- Karl Popper
> Thanks for the citation, because the truth of what he said is a direct fulfilment
> of the prophecy of our Lord and Savior Jesus, Son of the Most High God who
> is the Maker of heaven and earth.
>

> "These things I have spoken to you, that you should not be made to stumble..
> yes, the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God
> service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known
> the Father nor Me. But these things I have told you that when the time comes,
> you may remember that I told you of them." ~ John 16 ~
>
> So what you are stating, is a conformation of the veracity of His prediction.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Andrew
>
>

Andrew, don't you know that the book of John has almost nothing that
actually came from Jesus?

[casey]

On Mar 13, 4:01 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:51:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

And is God in control to transform a fetus or a child into the
higher level of intelligence of an adult?

How does your brain become more intelligent after you are born?
Does God tinker with your brain to make it happen?



>
> Gordon

[Gordon]

Most things like this fall under the realm of sovereign will. Of
course we don't have absolute sovereignty but we do have a great deal
of sovereignty and we are largely responsible for the way our
brain/mind develops and how we interact with the rest of society.
Gordon

[Budikka666]

On Mar 11, 12:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.

Where, in the theory of evolution does it say there is any kind of
'upward' trend? And by that I assume (since once again Usenet's
biggest Coward for Christ - see documentation below - has failed to
define any of his terms) growth in intelligence.

Where is your evidence that humans are devolving? What is your
definition of deovlution? I notice that, once again, Usenet's most
vacuous hypocrite has failed to support a single thing he says. Why
isn't that a surprise from the coward who RUNS every time he's asked
to support his claims? Or are we expected to take the word of a
known, demonstrated, and proven LIAR?

Heres your record of running like diarrhea every single time you've
been challenged on Usenet, thereby proving that even you have no faith
in your farcial lie of a god:

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&

More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.

http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7

Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&

Budikka

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:35:28 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net>

Idiot.

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 12, 1:41 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d9c26703-ffbb-45e0-8f1e-4d45d13c7...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>  nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 8:26 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> > > "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:Bjo%s.260443$kp4.1...@newsfe09.iad...

> > > > On 3/11/2013 12:08 PM, Andrew wrote:
> > > >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> > > >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>

> > > > There is no 'upward evolution'; there is only evolution.
> > > > Evolution is non-directional; it fits the population to
> > > > the environment in which it finds itself.
>
> > > The general theory states that, all life we see today
> > > has descended from a common primitive ancestor.
>
> > > So the complex life forms that we see today have
> > > descended from ancient primitive and very simple
> > > life forms - according to what is being taught, to
> > > the gullible who have accepted it.
>
> > > > I wonder whether you will ever get that.
>
> > > What you stated above is true in fact, but that
> > > is not what is being taught. It appears that you
> > > have rejected the doctrine of common descent.
>
> > > > Or, perhaps, you get it just fine, but need
> > > > directional, ever-'upward', change to use
> > > > as a straw man argument.
>
> > > Then explain universal common descent,
> > > and why you reject it.
>
> > > > The first is ignorance; the second
> > > > is mendacity.
>
> > > > Of course, there is nothing that says you
> > > > can't be ignorant and a liar at the same time.
>
> > > An ad hom is evidence that your argue from
> > > a false position.
>

> > > >> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> > > >> genome when we were created by God at
> > > >> the Beginning.
>

> > > >> Since then the human race has suffered
> > > >> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> > > >> now see from the evidence
>
> > > >>          http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>
> > > >> However God has a plan of eternal
> > > >> restoration for all of those who
> > > >> may be interested.
>

> > > Yes, this is true.
>


;
> Why do they believe so many things that just defy all fact? I try and I
> try but I just can't understand such stunted thinking.

That is indeed a perpetual puzzler, but in this case I
wasn't asking about adamant rejection of reality, I was
asking what the hell Andrew is trying to say here.

Somehow the fact the all come from one remote common
ancestor implies that evolution is directional.

And baseballs are round, therefore spaghetti.


NBL

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 12, 4:14 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "nature bats_last"  wrote in messagenews:d9c26703-ffbb-45e0...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Hello? Earth to Planet Andrew? Is there intelligent
life up there? I wasn't asking for some kind of
majority confirmation, I was asking if anyone could
figure out what the hell you're trying to say here.

See the difference?

Oh, lookie here: I already said that very thing.

;

> does anyone, anyone at all here understand

> why zany Andy equates rejection of

> directionality in evolution with denial

> of a LUCA?

;
> Explain why you believe we are genetically
> *superior* to our supposed LUCA.

Explain where you ever saw me saying any such thing.

I'll happily defend anything I say. I'm not up to
defending words you put in my mouth.

That said, let's examine the problem that possibly led
you to say anything of the sort: your Domain
chauvanism:

http://universe-review.ca/I10-02-TreeOfLife.jpg

Humans -- and all animals, and plants as well -- are
one tiny spray of twiglets on the end of a minor twig
way out on one branch of the entire taxonomic picture.
Single celled animals enormously exceed the rest of us
in number of species, in raw biomass, in number of
biological niches, in variety of biochemical pathways,
in adaptability, and just about any other metric you
care to name.

Lynn Margulis was correct in saying if a truly
alien biologist visited earth, it would describe
tha place as a planet of bacteria, with a smattering
of other things.

Life: it ain't about you. Or me either. If bacteria
and archaens could think, they'd probably feel bad for
poor metazoans, who can actually die.

;

> Also what is your understanding of the
> doctrine of universal common descent,

We all come from grandma proto-cell.

;

> and what is the proven mechanism thereof?

Reproduction, with "errors".


;

> Then please explain (without using fantasy)
> *the mechanism* of how evolution can
> develop irreducibly complex life systems,
> without directionality.

Since I've never seen an example of any biological
feature that was provably "irreducaibly complex", I'll
take a pass.

Did you know it's impossible to build a stone arch? The
thing would fall in long before you got it all put
together. You have to have all the pieces in place, all
at once, or it would collapse.


NBL

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 12, 4:51 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

Yeppers, we agree.

;

> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing
> infirmities and deformities that afflict us become
> more numerous and cumulative as time goes on.

A flat-out, unsupported, "because I said so" claim.

One article about one study -- a disputed study, as I
pointed out -- which claims that one single variable,
out of the thousands of parameters which comprise
"human", indicates the whole species is going to the
dogs.

I could equally point to the inexorable rise in Olympic
records to "prove" we are getting better and better and
better. That would be no less silly.


;

> Each new generation that follows the one before
> it has a slightly more disordered genetic make up
> than the one before. This is called genetic entropy.

Oh?

A couple of needful things.

1) define "disordered genetic make up" Change is not
prima facie "disorder". Something to comtemplate next
time you take a sip of milk.

2) demonstrate support for your claim that " Each new

generation that follows the one before it has a

slightly more disordered genetic make up".


NBL

[nature bats_last]

I wonder what Andrew makes of the numerous mummies
(Egyptan and Mesoamerican), people preserved in bogs,
the various "Icemen" -- who so frequently demonstrate
cringe-inducing levels of arthritis, dental disaster,
and disease. And -- this just in -- cardiac problems.


Maybe the just weren't "old enough".


NBL

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 12, 10:01 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:51:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

Actually, death, insofar as I know, has no intelligence.

But it surely does a fine job of removing from the
species the sort of "disorder" Andrew claims.



NBL

> Gordon

[SkyEyes]

Um, it *grows*. That's why babies are born with unfused plates in
their heads - so their brains can grow and expand. The human brain
isn't fully formed until about 21 years of age. Good grief.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34 and A+ atheist
BAAWA Knight of the Golden Litterbox
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net OR
skyeyes nine at yahoo dot com

[SkyEyes]

That's not fair, NBL. You *know* that's going to go whooshing right
over his pointy little head.

[casey]

I know all about how brains develop and how they become
more intelligent. Perhaps you should read more carefully
what I am responding to?

[Devils Advocaat]

On Mar 11, 5:08 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>

> The truth is that we started with a perfect
> genome when we were created by God at
> the Beginning.
>
> Since then the human race has suffered
> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
> now see from the evidence
>
>            http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>
> However God has a plan of eternal
> restoration for all of those who
> may be interested.
>

> Andrew

I guess you didn't read Dr. Gerald Crabtree's actual work.

[Gordon]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:11:05 -0700 (PDT), nature bats_last
<seqk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 12, 1:41�am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <d9c26703-ffbb-45e0-8f1e-4d45d13c7...@vv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> �nature bats_last <seqkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>

<snip>

>;
>> Why do they believe so many things that just defy all fact? I try and I
>> try but I just can't understand such stunted thinking.
>
>That is indeed a perpetual puzzler, but in this case I
>wasn't asking about adamant rejection of reality, I was
>asking what the hell Andrew is trying to say here.
>
>Somehow the fact the all come from one remote common
>ancestor implies that evolution is directional.
>

The Bible tells us that "The sons of God looked upon the daughters of
men and saw that they were fair and took unto themselves wives as they
chose." This indicates that the earliest humans interbred with other
hominids and this would have resulted in some genetic transfer from
the pre-hominids to modern humans.

Perhaps the Bible information about Adam naming the animals tells us
that Adam, or Adam class males used nouns, indicating that they had a
complex speech ability. Then God caused Adam to become infected with
some retrovirus that put him into a comatose state and while a woman
was caring for him this retrovirus infected her, transferring this
advanced speech gene from the platelets in Adam's rib to the ova of
the woman. Her descendants then also had this complex speech ability.

Gordon

[Andrew]

"MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2013.03.12....@nowhere.invalid...

> Andrew wrote:

<>

>> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing infirmities and
>> deformities that afflict us become more numerous and cumulative
>> as time goes on.
>>
>> Each new generation that follows the one before it has a slightly more
>> disordered genetic make up than the one before. This is called genetic
>> entropy.
>
> No, it's called "diversity", and is invaluable when the environment
> changes.

Diversity does not negate the fact of entropy.

> Populations with greater genetic diversity have more
> opportunities to adapt to the changes, and become more
> successful.

Yes, but diversity does not negate the fact of entropy.

> You (that is, creationists) seem to have this notion
> that the world, and everything in it, started out "perfect",
> and is now deteriorating as a result of "The Fall of Man".

Yes.

> However, our genomes are not deteriorating,

Everything does -eventually- according to the 2LOT.

> they, like everything, accumulate greater variation,
> that may be selected for or against, depending on
> circumstances.

The genetic information that facilitated the variation
and adaption was *already there* in the gene pool of
the reproducing population.

Adaption and variation has always been going on just
as our Creator has programmed all living things to do
from the beginning.

[Andrew]

"Tom McDonald" <kil...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:aLE%s.291741$J13.1...@newsfe08.iad...

> On 3/12/2013 6:51 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Tom McDonald" wrote in message news:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...
>>> nature bats_last wrote:

>>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote:

>>>>>> Andrew wrote:
>>>>>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>>>>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>>>>

>>>>>> There is no 'upward evolution'; there is only evolution.
>>>>>> Evolution is non-directional; it fits the population to
>>>>>> the environment in which it finds itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> The general theory states that, all life we see today
>>>>> has descended from a common primitive ancestor.
>>>>>
>>>>> So the complex life forms that we see today have
>>>>> descended from ancient primitive and very simple
>>>>> life forms - according to what is being taught, to
>>>>> the gullible who have accepted it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder whether you will ever get that.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you stated above is true in fact, but that
>>>>> is not what is being taught. It appears that you
>>>>> have rejected the doctrine of common descent.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or, perhaps, you get it just fine, but need
>>>>>> directional, ever-'upward', change to use
>>>>>> as a straw man argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then explain universal common descent,
>>>>> and why you reject it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The first is ignorance; the second
>>>>>> is mendacity.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, there is nothing that says you
>>>>>> can't be ignorant and a liar at the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> An ad hom is evidence that your argue from
>>>>> a false position.
>>>>>

>>>>>>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>>>>>>> genome when we were created by God at
>>>>>>> the Beginning.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since then the human race has suffered
>>>>>>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>>>>>>> now see from the evidence
>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.p2l.it/1n5
>>>>>
>>>>>>> However God has a plan of eternal
>>>>>>> restoration for all of those who
>>>>>>> may be interested.
>>>>>

>>>>> Yes, this is true.
>>>>
>>>> OK, show of hands: does anyone, anyone

>>>> at all here understand why zany Andy equates
>>>> rejection of directionality in evolution with denial

>>>> of a LUCA? Because I haven't Clue One.
>>>

>>> He appears to conflate the fact of a general increase
>>> in complexity of life in the early biosphere with some
>>> notional law that states every evolutionary change must
>>> lead to an increase of complexity in every case going
>>> forward. It would seem to be related to the common
>>> creationist meme that evolution must necessarily result
>>> in an increase of information in the genome at every step.
>>
>> Not at every step, but, in the big picture.
>

> No. When new environmental niches open up, and when adapting
> to them would be facilitated by increasing complexity (cf: the
> Cambrian 'explosion'), then we tend to see relatively generalized
> increases in complexity.

If Darwin's theory of life evolving from the simple to the complex
were correct, then there would not be any Cambrian explosion that
is filled with complex life forms.

He even acknowledged that himself.

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
system, I can give no satisfactory answer...the difficulty of assigning
any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
beneath the Cambrian system is very great...The case at present must
remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
against the views here entertained."
-- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10


> In more stable ecosystems, with niches generally changing very
> gradually, then complexity may increase,

Please explain exactly *how* this complexity increases.

[Andrew]

"nature bats_last" wrote in message news:183abcb5-d91c-4d66...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On Mar 12, 10:01 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:

>> "Andrew" wrote:

The death of an individual will not remove the remaining
genetic disorder that is in the gene pool of the population.

[Andrew]

"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-1BB4B3...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23245856

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01372408?LI=true#page-1

http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/chinaproof.pdf

http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/article.aspx?articleid=1075637%20

http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/Baumgardner/Mendels-Accountant.pdf

http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Test-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

[Andrew]

"nature bats_last" wrote in message news:e91d87fc-cc72-4eb4-bafb-

> Demonstrate support for your claim that "Each new generation that

> follows the one before it has a slightly more disordered genetic make
> up".

http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/chinaproof.pdf

[Mitchell Holman]

"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:ivWdnUHd8rSV4t3M...@earthlink.com:

Who said anything about individuals?
If a random mutation is harmful it will
not be preserved. What does that have to
with a "remaining genetic disorder"?

[Gordon]

This, of course, depends upon when in life the negative effects of a
mutation show up...before reproduction or long after reproduction. For
example, old age hearing loss that doesn't result in any problems
until long after the person has reproduced will remain in the gene
pool while some genetic defect that results in early age blindness
would not. Gordon

[Andrew]

"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA18152ED4C770...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote:

>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>>>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>>>

>>> There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.
>>
>> It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary
>> teaching of universal common descent.But genetic
>> entropy is undeniable.
>>
>>> There's only adaptation, and it's non-directional.
>>
>> Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.
>>
>>> Populations of animals un- evolve things their parent
>>> populations developed all the time.
>>
>> And their progeny cannot go back, because of
>> the *loss* of genetic information. Right? Yes.
>>
>>> That's where you get things like blind cave fish.
>>
>> I understand that.
>>
>>> If you knew anything about
>>> evolution (which you don't), you'd know this.
>>
>> I just said that I concur with what you said.
>>
>>> <Snip creationist babble>
>>
>> Nevertheless the truth remains.................
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>> The truth is that we started with a perfect
>> genome when we were created by God at
>> the Beginning.
>>
>> Since then the human race has suffered
>> the effects of genetic entropy, as we can
>> now see from the evidence
>
>

> Why did god create "genetic entropy"?

It apparently has affect on the entire creation,
which would certainly include our genome..

*****************************
"In the beginning, Lord, you laid the
foundation of the earth and made
the heavens with your hands.

They will perish, but you remain forever.
They will wear out like old clothing.

You will fold them up like a cloak
and discard them like old clothing.

But you are always the same;
you will live forever."

~ Hebrews 1:10-12 ~

[Ralph]

Baumgardner?? Remine?? Evidence by creationists is the same as no evidence.

[Ralph]

That's right Andrew, the Lord will live forever in nothingness.

[casey]

On Mar 13, 11:59 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:aLE%s.291741$J13.1...@newsfe08.iad...

> > On 3/12/2013 6:51 AM, Andrew wrote:

> >> "Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

And unlike you Charles Darwin as a true scientist was open to
the possibility he was wrong despite the explanatory power of
natural selection.

That we may come across things that don't seem to fit a
theory doesn't mean we invent a magic god theory it means
we modify the theory or work out one that fits the facts.

http://www.skepdic.com/cambrian.html

> >  In more stable ecosystems, with niches generally changing very
> >  gradually, then complexity may increase,
>
> Please explain exactly *how* this complexity increases.

It would be selected for if it made the organism more competitive.

The connections in an ANN become more complex as it learns
without the need for a magic god you might like to understand
how that comes about.

The "magic" of our modern technology is the result of science.

You recognize the power of science and try and make it fit
your Bible but you are talking absolute crap.

[Tom McDonald]

Cf: the Ediacarian fossils.

>> In more stable ecosystems, with niches generally changing very
>> gradually, then complexity may increase,
>
> Please explain exactly *how* this complexity increases.
>

Mutation and natural selection in response to changes in environment,
competition and the 'arms race' between eater and eaten.

[Tom McDonald]

No, but the differential reproduction of individuals in a given
population with a genetic mutation will. And that's what we see.

[Don Martin]

SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 5:13 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Mar 13, 4:01 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:

<snipporino>

>> How does your brain become more intelligent after you are born?
>> Does God tinker with your brain to make it happen?
>
> Um, it *grows*. That's why babies are born with unfused plates in
> their heads - so their brains can grow and expand. The human brain
> isn't fully formed until about 21 years of age. Good grief.

While the brain does grow some (not nearly as much as the rest of the
body), the unfused plates are probably more important for skull flexibility
in passing down our complicated birth canal. (I say "our" birth canal, but
am happy that I do not personally have one.)

--
aa #2278 Never mind "proof." Where is your evidence?
BAAWA Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief Heckler
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/

[MarkA]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:52:13 -0700, Andrew wrote:

> "MarkA" wrote in message news:pan.2013.03.12....@nowhere.invalid...
>> Andrew wrote:
>
> <>
>
>>> The thing is that, genetic imperfections causing infirmities and
>>> deformities that afflict us become more numerous and cumulative
>>> as time goes on.
>>>
>>> Each new generation that follows the one before it has a slightly more
>>> disordered genetic make up than the one before. This is called genetic
>>> entropy.
>>
>> No, it's called "diversity", and is invaluable when the environment
>> changes.
>
> Diversity does not negate the fact of entropy.
>
>> Populations with greater genetic diversity have more
>> opportunities to adapt to the changes, and become more
>> successful.
>
> Yes, but diversity does not negate the fact of entropy.
>
>> You (that is, creationists) seem to have this notion
>> that the world, and everything in it, started out "perfect",
>> and is now deteriorating as a result of "The Fall of Man".
>
> Yes.

So, who has the "perfect genome": a cat, that is light and nimble, or a
dog, that is heavy and powerful?

>
>> However, our genomes are not deteriorating,
>
> Everything does -eventually- according to the 2LOT.

It is expected that entropy will eventually kill the Universe, but it is
expected to take several billion years. In the meantime, creationists
often overlook the fact that it is the business of living things to take
energy from their environment, and use it to combat their own, personal
entropy. Stop eating and drinking for a few months, and notice how much
more disordered your body becomes once you die.

>
>> they, like everything, accumulate greater variation, that may be
>> selected for or against, depending on circumstances.
>
> The genetic information that facilitated the variation and adaption was
> *already there* in the gene pool of the reproducing population.
>

Yes, and new information is constantly being added, by the processes of
gene duplication and mutation. Any new information that is somehow
detrimental is quickly eliminated by natural selection.

> Adaption and variation has always been going on just as our Creator has
> programmed all living things to do from the beginning.

"Adaptation and variation" is exactly what evolution is.

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <Su-dnXkIyOE9Gd3M...@earthlink.com>,

You'll have to point out the exact words in that paper that support your
silly notion.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <N96dndfiNqxZH93M...@earthlink.com>,

Where's the evidence on that page?


> http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF01372408?LI=true#page-1

Where on that page does it say anything related to your ridiculous
notion?


> http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/chinaproof.pdf

Where in that paper does it say anything related to your ridiculous
notion?


> http://opticalengineering.spiedigitallibrary.org/article.aspx?articleid=107563
> 7%20

Where on that page does it say anything related to your ridiculous
notion?


> http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/Baumgardner/Mendels-Accountant.pd
> f

I see an assertion in the abstract, but where's the evidence?


> http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/Using-Numerical-Simulation-to-Tes
> t-the-Validity-of-Neo-Darwinian-Theory.pdf

What does a conference on creationism have to do with reality?

Seriously, dude, learn what evidence is so you won't continue to make
yourself look the fool.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:05:56 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>In article <Su-dnXkIyOE9Gd3M...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> "nature bats_last" wrote in message news:e91d87fc-cc72-4eb4-bafb-
>>
>> > Demonstrate support for your claim that "Each new generation that
>> > follows the one before it has a slightly more disordered genetic make
>> > up".
>>
>>
>> http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/chinaproof.pdf
>
>
>You'll have to point out the exact words in that paper that support your
>silly notion.

He can't.

It's a standard problem with these morons - they post a link to
something and leave you to find what they imagine supports them, when
anybody with a high school education knows that either there won't be
or it is a creationist lie site.

And they certainly don't have the basic education or knowledge to
defend it.

[Mitchell Holman]

Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote in
news:jq11k89k3fp5551ho...@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:00:51 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <nomailverizon.net> wrote:
>
>>"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
>>news:ivWdnUHd8rSV4t3M...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> "nature bats_last" wrote in message

>>> news:183abcb5-d91c-4d66-a852-d401e2ea8849

Organ degeneration is part of aging and
not genetic defect. In fact death itself is
a genetic asset for passing on the diversity
of sexual reproduction at a beneficial rate.

[Gordon]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:34:57 -0500, Mitchell Holman

I've known some who had very good hearing well into their 90s and I've
known some who lost their hearing before reaching age 20. It's the
hereditary difference that I was referring to. In primitive times,
those who lost their hearing at a very early age would not likely have
survived or reproduced but those who had good hearing well into their
latter years would not have been culled from the herd, so to speak.
Gordon

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 05:59:32 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

undoubtedly false.

>He even acknowledged that himself.

not remotely related.

>"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits
>belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian
>system, I can give no satisfactory answer...the difficulty of assigning
>any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils
>beneath the Cambrian system is very great...The case at present must
>remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument
>against the views here entertained."
> -- Charles Darwin, (from)"Origin of Species" chapter 10
>
>
>> In more stable ecosystems, with niches generally changing very
>> gradually, then complexity may increase,
>
>Please explain exactly *how* this complexity increases.
>
>

Stop worshipping lies.

[Free Lunch]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:11:50 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:

Andrew has no use for evidence. Evidence shows that he is preaching
lies.

[Andrew]

"August Rode" wrote in message news:513f10ed$0$43177$862e...@ngroups.net...
> And lo, "Andrew" spaketh on 11-Mar-2013, saying:

>> "SkyEyes" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>> >
>> >> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> >> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>> >

>> > There is no "upward" or "downward" in evolution.
>>
>> It seems that you also have rejected the evolutionary
>> teaching of universal common descent.But genetic
>> entropy is undeniable.
>

> If you're going to claim that common descent implies a
> direction, then I'll have to point out to you that 'descent'
> carries the meaning 'downward' rather than 'upward'.

Ah yes, so we started with the most primitive of life forms
then descended 'downward' rather than 'upward' -> to man.

Or, we stated with the Creation, which was according to
God "very good", then descended 'downward' rather than
'upward', -> to today, revealing the effects of the Fall.

>> > There's only adaptation, and it's non-directional.
>>
>> Natural selection is in a sense somewhat directional.
>

> Only in terms of fitness to the environment.

Yes, ''the direction of'', fitness to the environment.

No more. No less.

> Were you thinking of something else?

No, and I see that you don't assume something
else either.

Which brings us back to the Creation model.

Because NS can *only* select for fitness to
the environment. Not move you to a higher
taxonomic category. Even if you had lots of
time, and remember that in time there is also
entropy.

>> > Populations of animals un- evolve things their
>> > parent populations developed all the time.
>>
>> And their progeny cannot go back, because of
>> the *loss* of genetic information. Right? Yes.
>

> No. It's extremely unlikely that a mutation that precisely
> reverses a previous mutation would happen.

It can happen anytime and all the time,
.......in the fantasy of a Darwinist.

> Descendant populations can lose earlier
> developments inherited from their ancestors

Now where did these 'developments' come from?

Let me guess --> mutation and NS. The pseudoscience
catch phrase which has been swallowed by the gullible,
despite it's practical implausibility.

> but it isn't be reversing all the steps that led to that
> development in the first place.

The point is that, if genetic information is lost, then
....... it's gone. Entropy is happening all the time.

And all evidence points to the Creation model
of origins as being the correct model.

Think about it, then reject the hoax that you
have been taught, as many others have also
rejected it when they found out.

Thanks.


Andrew

[Andrew]

"Ralph" wrote in message news:_9OdnTyb_NlECt3M...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:

>> "nature bats_last" wrote:
>>> Demonstrate support for your claim that "Each new generation that
>>> follows the one before it has a slightly more disordered genetic make
>>> up".
>>
>> http://logosresearchassociates.org/Documents/John_Sanford/chinaproof.pdf
>
> Baumgardner?? Remine?? Evidence by creationists is the same as no evidence.

An expected ad hom from some, however I think that
NBL will see that it directly addresses his question.

[Andrew]

"Budikka666" wrote in message news:10db5970-7ee0-44bc...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> "Andrew" wrote:
>> Evidence shows that humans are devolving,
>> and that upward evolution has been a hoax.
>

> Where, in the theory of evolution does it say there is any kind of
> 'upward' trend?

If you claim to be the expert, then why are you asking me?

Look up "universal common descent".

> Where is your evidence that humans are devolving?

Well think about it. If they are not evolving upward, according
to your above, then they are evolving downward, or, devolving.

Got it?

Good!

Thanks.

Andrew

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <95WdndywcLyaidzM...@earthlink.com>,

Yeah, we've been getting that you're spouting your willful ignorance
over and over again for the world to see.

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 13, 5:59 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Tom McDonald" <kilt...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:aLE%s.291741$J13.1...@newsfe08.iad...

> > On 3/12/2013 6:51 AM, Andrew wrote:

> >> "Tom McDonald" wrote in messagenews:IQD%s.161082$O02....@newsfe18.iad...

You are aware that Darwin didn't write that last week,
yes? And in fact it's now a century and a half later?
And that very large numbers of fossils have been
uncovered since Darwin set that down?

Including an increasing number of pre-Cambrian fossils?



Hell, let Schopf (yes, *that* Schopf) explain it; do it
better than I can:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC34368/

Want more? His book on the topic is worth reading.
Twice.


http://www.amazon.com/Cradle-Life-Discovery-Earliest-Fossils/dp/0691088640/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363197862&sr=1-1&keywords=schopf+fossils


But all that aside, let's talk about something far more
important: Darwin's complete honesty. In "The Origin"
Darwin -- of his own volition -- raised three major
objections TO HIS OWN THEORY. And said he could see no
way around them, but hoped future generations could.
One of these three was what you quote, above.

Do you know what the other two objecetions were? Would
you like to discuss them now?


NBL

[nature bats_last]

On Mar 13, 6:31 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "nature bats_last" wrote in messagenews:183abcb5-d91c-4d66...@kw7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

;

> > But it surely does a fine job of removing from the
> > species the sort of "disorder" Andrew claims.

;
> The death of an individual will not remove the remaining
> genetic disorder that is in the gene pool of the population.

Completely remove it, leaving not even one single
carrier? Probably not. Good enough? You tell me:
what's the incidence of, say, Krabbe disease in the
general population?

NBL

[nature bats_last]

Actually, quite an interesting article.

Until it is pointed out that he sets his default
population size to 1000. You won't find an actual
population geneticist in the world who won't agree that
with a "bottle-neck" size cohort, one this tiny,
genetic disaster is quite likely.

But that said, the article is still provocative enough
that I went searching the scholarly literature to find
out how actual populations geneticists had reacted, and
see what further research of this nature Sanford's
article has inspired.

Nothing. Nada. Not one journal article; not even one
letters-page commentary.

Perhaps this total vacuum was due to the fact that, as
the entry on Sanford in Wikipedia succinctly put it:
"Sanford's position is rejected by most geneticists and
biologists".

But looking even further, I finally found quite an
interesting blog -- not a journal, a blog -- where
Sanford's model was in fact being discussed. I will
quote from one blogger, whose nym is "Just a theory":



"[...] I find that they have not taken into
account:


1. Neutral mutations - the program classifies
mutations as having some selection coefficient.
Genes are not free to mutate within boundaries
provided that the selection coefficient is zero.
This is in direct contravention to innumerable
papers on genetics, starting with Kimmura's
original one on neutral mutations. The ability for
random mutation to explore neutral sequence space
has been well documented.

2. Linkage - the program classifies genes as
dominant (+) or recessive (-), there are no other
choices. Gene linkage allows harmful genes to piggy
back on beneficial, successful genes.

3. Sexual selection - the program does not simulate
sexual selection at all. Sexual selection allows
harmful mutations (eg. peacock's tail) to
accumulate because they are favourable for
reproductive success.

4. Duplication - the program does not allow for
gene duplication events. Simple thought
experimentation reveals that a duplicated gene is
free to vary provided that the original gene
maintains function. Thus harmful mutations in the
duplicated gene are less harmful overall but
beneficial mutations are still emphasised.
Furthermore, the duplicated gene may assume a novel
function.

[this one, of course, is something I have
pointed out to Andrew roughly one zillion times now
-- NBL]

I could probably go on, others certainly have, but
those 4 are enough for now. The program is
excessively simplistic in its treatment of
evolutionary mechanisms and excludes several
extremely important factors which favour
accumulation of non-harmful mutations. Exclusion of
those factors erroneously leads one to the
conclusion that the genome is deteriorating by the
accumulation of a weight of deleterious mutations".





About the 1000 default population cap, another blogger
resorts to a basic statistical argument, the Drunkard's
Walk, to examine the effects of using a number that
small:


"The main issue is the population cap indeed. The
results are legit for populations with such a low
cap. Think of this way: at the cap of 1000
individuals, the mean number of offspring never
exceed 2 (to go above 2 there'd have to be more
than 1000 individuals). It can be lower though.
This is a drunkard's walk phenomenon, you have a
chance to go lower, but not higher than 2 and at 0
there's an absorbing boundary - extinction. So
ultimately any population will go extinct.

For larger population sizes there are more
deletious mutations, but that doesn't matter -
selection gets more efficient as well and you can
do a lot of maths there. But the drunkard's walk
argument is rather simple and gets the point
across. BTW, the result is legit: All species will
eventually go extinct because there is a population
cap (if only that theres a finite amount of matter
in the universe). But the mean waiting time to
extinction goes up if population sizes are larger
and itll take longer for all life on earth to go
extinct in that way than for the sun to blow up."


Obviously a valid point (albeit taken to the extremes)


NBL