Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
an RRR Cultist.
And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
is 100% HARMLESS.
They are *quite* the collection of LOSERS!
America's worst infestation. And causing this country to be
an embarrassment before those other countries of the world
which have been FORTUNATE enough to have AVOIDED and
REJECTED such infestations.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
��� Rest in Peace ���
��� George Richard Tiller, MD ���
��� A True American HERO! ���
��� August 8, 1941 � May 31, 2009 ���
��� Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ���
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
www.LayoffRemedy.com -- Unemployment Solution!
www.ChristianEgalitarian.com -- Fight the RRR Cult!
http://apifar.blogspot.com -- Tactics: Defending Human Rights
http://pro-christian.blogspot.com -- Exposing RRR Bigotry
www.shadowandillusion.com -- Learn "The LOPAQUA Secret!"
www.TravelForPay.org -- Learn how to get PAID to TRAVEL!
gabriel
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
:
: Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
: would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
:
: Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
: DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
testable/verifiable.
Evolutionists will make claims about the fossil record supporting
evolution. No, it's only their BELIEFS of what those fossils and
dead bones means to them (and what they want it to mean to
everyone else) that "supports" evolution. The beliefs themselves
remain unobservable and un-testable/un-verifiable!
Evolutionists will claim that their beliefs lead to predictions
as proof it's science. So using that new definition of science
(that any prediction made by a belief automatically qualifies
said belief as science), creation by God qualifies as science as
it leads to more accurate predictions as seen in homology, DNA
similarity, the Cambrian Explosion, DNA being meaningfully
encoded information and the ability for it to be meaningfully
decoded and acted upon, and more. But of course evolutionists
will then return to the actual truth of what science really is
and refute that notion with "Show a single observation or
test/verification of God creating anything." Bingo.
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
[flies] only ever produce, over generations, more [flies] even if
they are in rare cases a slightly different species of [flies]
(but still [flies]!), which we call Speciation, remains intact
and is a far cry from what evolutionists believe: that
populations of [flies] will produce, over generations, animals
that are clearly no longer [flies] at all! (Same holds true no
matter what animal you replace with [flies] in the previous
sentence). Much like hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings
are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they believe all
of those things and most everything else evolved from populations
of fish and worse over generations once upon a time.
But in the end, although no origin scientific claim really can
qualify as science (and it's either ignorance or outright
dishonesty to claim it is), it's logically undeniable we were
created. Just like a building is proof of a builder, more so if
it's a building that's so advanced in its design it can adapt to
its environment, remove dirt particles on a continuous basis, and
even produce more buildings just like itself over time. Not to
mention computer and computer programs are proof of a designer -
just like DNA, which is encoded instructions and the ability for
those instructions to be meaningfully decoded and acted upon in
near miraculous ways. The only faith part: was it the God of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the heavenly Father of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ? Or was it aliens? From a faith standpoint
on either choice, the choice is obvious.
Trawley Trash
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
> the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
> hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
> Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
> origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
> testable/verifiable.
There is a principle in evolutionary biology that states "progeny
recapitulates phylogeny." What it means is that developing embryos go
through evolutionary development in a similar way to the evolution of
their ancestors. Every human embryo begins as a single-celled
organism. Then it becomes a hollow blastula. Then it forms a feeding
tube and looks like a worm. Then it goes fish-to-man.
Observable, testable, verifiable, repeatable: fish-to-man
is as firmly established as gravity.
Stile4aly
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:39:41 -0500
>
Actually, it's "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" and it's a bad
argument because it doesn't actually happen the way you describe.
Gabriel doesn't understand what evolution is or what it claims. He
sets up a strawman, charges it down, and then crows triumphantly.
gabriel
<tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:39:41 -0500
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > The fish to man version of evolution (evolutionism for short -
: > the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
: > hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
: > Intelligent design is also not science. Neither is any other
: > origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
: > testable/verifiable.
:
: There is a principle in evolutionary biology that states "progeny
: recapitulates phylogeny." What it means is that developing embryos go
: through evolutionary development in a similar way to the evolution of
: their ancestors.
No, they BELIEVE it goes through an evolutionary development in a
similar way to the evolution of their ancestors. But since it's
not observable, not testable and not verifiable that they evolved
that way at all over generations to begin with, it's only a
belief that the growth process is "similar" to that which is not
observable, not testable and not verifiable.. In essence, yet
again a belief that is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable - one can only believe in it.
: Every human embryo begins as a single-celled
: organism.
Don't most embryos? And using your logic, since all embryos look
the same to each other as a single-celled organism at that early
moment in time, suddenly that means they all evolved from each
other since they look the same.
: Then it becomes a hollow blastula. Then it forms a feeding
: tube and looks like a worm.
How would it be possible for an embryo to *not* supposedly yet
briefly look like a worm at some point in its growth cycle from
its initial stages? It's not - this only shows how far
evolutionists are stretching to claim the growth cycle of an
animal while in the womb means anything remotely to what they
claim it does. The claim itself is not observable, not testable,
not verifiable - we can only take their word for it that it means
they evolved one from the other. Again, not science.
: Then it goes fish-to-man.
No, human embryos never look like actual fish, which also
destroys your whole argument.
:
: Observable, testable, verifiable, repeatable: fish-to-man
: is as firmly established as gravity.
:
Please show a single observation and/or test/verification of the
fish to man version of evolution: for example, populations of
[flies] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
no longer [flies] at all (just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and
human beings are clearly no longer fish at all, even though they
believe their ancestors were fish). You can replace [flies] with
any animal known to man, and in the entire recorded history of
the human race, no such things has ever happened. Translation:
not science.
gabriel
<stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Feel free to point out even one detail in what I said that was so
wrong. Should be trivial to do since according to you I "don't
understand what evolution is". The fact is, whenever someone says
that, and I challenge them to point out a single detail that was
so wrong, they either vanish, or point out things I never said.
Stile4aly
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:48 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
>
Sure thing:
> : > > The fish to man version of evolution
There is no such thing, there is only the Theory of Evolution which is
to say the observed fact that gene frequencies change in a population
over time and that those genes that confer traits that grant superior
reproductive success tend to propagate most successfully. Over time
these changes can accumulate resulting in a daughter population that
would no longer be sexually compatible with a parent population. This
process is called speciation and has also been observed.
> : > >(evolutionism for short -
"Evolutionism" is a pejorative term used by creationists to describe
people that accept the evidence for evolution. The intent is to cast
acceptance of the evidence as some sort of belief akin to a religious
belief, when this is clearly not the case.
> : > > the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
> : > > hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
If that's what evolution claimed then it would indeed not be science,
however that isn't what evolution claims. Hippos, giraffes, etc do
share common ancestry with modern fish, but are not descended from
modern fish. They are instead descended from a tetrapod common
ancestor.
> : > > Intelligent design is also not science.
This we agree on.
Neither is any other
> : > > origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
> : > > testable/verifiable.
That's false. I've laid out elsewhere how one might conduct a test on
the theory of evolution. One could examine gene frequency changes.
One could also conduct tests of common ancestry. One might
hypothesize the features that might be found in a transitional
species, and then if one finds a fossil example of such a species the
test would be confirmed. If such a specimen could not be found, then
that would require the theory to be revised.
Trawley Trash
Stile4aly <stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, it's "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" and it's a bad
> argument because it doesn't actually happen the way you describe.
Ontology has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you meant to write
"ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That was the explanation of a
German scientist and younger contemporary of Darwin. Haekel elaborated
a theory of evolution based on Darwin and Lamarck. Lamarck
has since been thoroughly tested and proved wrong.
This is why I wrote "progeny recapitulates phylogeny." Drawings
and photographs speak for themselves. The similarity between an
early human embryo and a fish is remarkable. Of course it isn't
perfect, and it does not provide a complete explanation for
evolution. It is DNA that does that.
> Gabriel doesn't understand what evolution is or what it claims. He
> sets up a strawman, charges it down, and then crows triumphantly.
Since I have heard the fish-to-man objections so many times
I thought I would just post once about the remarkable similarities
between between fish and human embryos. This similarity holds
regardless of whether some man named Haekel followed a now discredited
version of evolution or simplified his drawings.
Stile4aly
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:48 -0800 (PST)
>
> > Actually, it's "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" and it's a bad
> > argument because it doesn't actually happen the way you describe.
>
> Ontology has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you meant to write
> "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." That was the explanation of a
> German scientist and younger contemporary of Darwin. Haekel elaborated
> a theory of evolution based on Darwin and Lamarck. Lamarck
> has since been thoroughly tested and proved wrong.
You're right. Mixing up my science and philosophy again. Since I
thought this was what you were referring to, particularly with regards
to Haeckel (who sends the fundies into a tizzie since he embellished
his work with his own imagination) I thought it best to avoid this
argument despite the fact that we do see ancestral structures in
embryonic development.
gabriel
<stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Not true. Where did human beings come from according to
evolutionists? That's right, from mammals (ape like ancestors),
which in turn came from reptiles (all mammals came from reptiles,
they claim), which in turn came from amphibians, which in turn
came from fish. Please read up on what they believe before
telling others they don't understand it.
So indeed, they certainly believe that populations of fish
evolved, over generations, eventually into hippos, giraffes,
eagles and human beings. But of course they will not mention this
very often as others will realize how absurd their claims are,
and they hope no one will notice.
: there is only the Theory of Evolution which is
: to say the observed fact that gene frequencies change in a population
: over time and that those genes that confer traits that grant superior
: reproductive success tend to propagate most successfully. Over time
: these changes can accumulate resulting in a daughter population that
: would no longer be sexually compatible with a parent population. This
: process is called speciation and has also been observed.
Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
more [flies], and on extremely rare situations animals that are a
different species of [flies], but *still [flies]*. What has
*never* been observed, the fish to man version of evolution:
populations of [flies] producing, over generations, animals that
are clearly no longer [flies] at all. (Just like hippos,
giraffes, eagles and human beings are all clearly no longer fish
at all).
:
: > : > >(evolutionism for short -
:
: "Evolutionism" is a pejorative term used by creationists to describe
: people that accept the evidence for evolution.
No, it's a term used to differentiate the difference from those
who are actually performing science (populations of [flies]
producing over generations a slightly different species of
[flies] that are *still [flies]*) and those who inject false
science fiction beliefs into it (that populations of [flies]
could produce, over generations, animals that are clearly no
longer [flies] at all).
: The intent is to cast
: acceptance of the evidence as some sort of belief akin to a religious
: belief, when this is clearly not the case.
It is the case when the version of evolution you believe in has
never once been observed in the entire recorded history of the
human race. One can only believe in the version of evolution you
subscribe to, and science itself can repeatedly show
observations, tests and verifications that your fish to man
version never happens no matter how many generations pass. And
just because you believe it takes millions of years and "that's
why" does not excuse it from the FACT that it remains
unobservable, untestable and unverifiable - one can only take
their word for it. Welcome to religion.
:
: > : > > the belief that populations of fish produced, over generations,
: > : > > hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not science.
:
: If that's what evolution claimed then it would indeed not be science,
: however that isn't what evolution claims. Hippos, giraffes, etc do
: share common ancestry with modern fish, but are not descended from
: modern fish. They are instead descended from a tetrapod common
: ancestor.
Again you make up something I never said. I didn't say they came
from *modern* fish. I said they evolved from populations of fish
over generations. So of course these fish I'm referring to are
from the past. Again, you're making false claims and acting like
I said them.
And where did those tetrapod ancestors come from? That's right,
evolved from fish-like ancestors. If that's not true, what did
those tetrapod ancestors come from?
:
: > : > > Intelligent design is also not science.
:
: This we agree on.
Yes, no origins theory can qualify as science, because those
beliefs are not observable, not testable and not verifiable.
:
: Neither is any other
: > : > > origins theory. Why? Because none of them are observable or
: > : > > testable/verifiable.
:
: That's false. I've laid out elsewhere how one might conduct a test on
: the theory of evolution. One could examine gene frequency changes.
Wrong. This only shows that populations of [flies] produce, over
generations, more [flies], no matter how much they adapt, or gene
frequencies change. This is all that's ever been observed no
matter how much their gene frequencies change in the entire
recorded history of the human race. What you believe happens,
that populations of [flies] can evolve, over generations, into
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all (this is the
fish to man version of evolution), has NEVER been observed in the
entire recorded history of the human race, no matter which animal
you replace with [flies] in that sentence.
: One could also conduct tests of common ancestry.
No, one can only make up a test that they BELIEVE shows this. And
yet the belief itself is still unobservable, untestable and
unverifiable that populations of [flies] can evolve, over
generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at
all. This remains a fact no matter what animal you replace with
[flies] in that sentence.
In fact, science actually disproves the fish to man version of
evolution: science can repeatedly show observations, tests and
verifications that no matter how much they adapt and allele
frequencies change, and no matter how many thousands of
generations go by, that populations of [flies] have NEVER evolved
over generations into animals that are clearly no longer [flies]
at all. Same holds true for every animal known the man in the
entire recorded history of the human race that you can replace
with [flies] in that sentence.
: One might
: hypothesize the features that might be found in a transitional
: species,
Yes one might make up a belief, but it's just another belief that
is not observable as actually having happened - only their claim
that it did.
: and then if one finds a fossil example of such a species the
: test would be confirmed.
Claiming a fossil is transitional is still just a belief, and
believing it is does not make it so - and doesn't change the fact
that the belief it did is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable - one can only take their word for it on their belief
being true.
: If such a specimen could not be found, then
: that would require the theory to be revised.
Wrong. In spite of millions of missing transitional forms, that
hasn't caused them to abandon their beliefs in the least. Not to
mention the Cambrian Explosion completely falsifying their
beliefs when it utterly contradicts their beliefs and
predictions.
So again, you've only proved that what I said was accurate, on
top of you making up things I never said to claim what I said was
wrong.
You might want to ask yourself why you have to resort to
dishonesty and ignorance of what the fish to man version of
evolution claims to hold onto your denial of the truth.
gabriel
<tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:38:48 -0800 (PST)
Falsified his drawing is more accurate. He faked them to look
similar, and his faked drawings were still in science textbooks
as of a decade ago. Talk about dishonesty.
Be that as it may, every single animal's embryo's are going to
look identical if you go early enough in their life cycle - sort
of unavoidable if we all start off as a cluster of cells and grow
from there, as cells obviously look similar. So using this logic,
we all must have the same parents since we all look the same
early enough in our development cycle.
This only shows that the belief that any similarities in embryos
is any proof whatsoever that they evolved one from the other is
just another belief. The claim that we evolved from such
ancestors is unobservable, untestable and unverifiable. The claim
that populations of [flies] can evolve, over generations, into
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all is not
observable, not testable and not verifiable, no matter what
animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence. Science
disproves the fish to man version of evolution. One can only
believe in it.
Trawley Trash
gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Falsified his drawing is more accurate. He faked them to look
> similar, and his faked drawings were still in science
> textbooks as of a decade ago. Talk about dishonesty.
Haekel's drawings are still widely used because of the
way he laid everything out in tabular form. I remember sitting
in a doctor's office admiring the beautiful drawings, but
I did not know where they came from.
There are photographs that show the same thing. It just isn't as
clear.
> Be that as it may, every single animal's embryo's are going to
> look identical if you go early enough in their life cycle - sort
> of unavoidable if we all start off as a cluster of cells and grow
> from there, as cells obviously look similar.
Actually there are bigger differences at very early stages.
The biggest one depends on whether the embryo sits on a yolk
sack or not.
> So using this logic,
> we all must have the same parents since we all look the same
> early enough in our development cycle.
No. We are all distant cousins. And more distant cousins
with apes and chimpanzees. DNA karyotypes show clearly where
chromosomes 2a and 2b of the apes fused to make our chromosome
2. This is why humans have only twenty-three pairs
of chromosomes instead of twenty-four.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype
> This only shows that the belief that any similarities in
> embryos is any proof whatsoever that they evolved one from
> the other is just another belief.
It isn't proof, but it is suggestive enough to require an
explanation. How does creationism explain this?
> The claim that we evolved from such ancestors is
> unobservable, untestable and unverifiable.
As opposed to the claim that your religion has access to secret
divine revelation?
> The claim that populations of [flies] can evolve, over
> generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] > at all
> is not observable, not testable and not verifiable, no
> matter what
> animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence.
DNA karyotypes show that humans evolved from the
great apes.
> Science
> disproves the fish to man version of evolution. One can only
> believe in it.
You were a fish. Your mother was a fish. Look in a mirror.
Don't you see the resemblance?
Chris
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote in
message news:ucdpf51jd56nvke29...@4ax.com...
>
> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>
> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>
> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>
> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
> an RRR Cultist.
>
> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
> is 100% HARMLESS.
As is man/dog marriage, father/daughter marriage, or brother/sister
marriage........
>
> They are *quite* the collection of LOSERS!
>
> America's worst infestation. And causing this country to be
> an embarrassment before those other countries of the world
> which have been FORTUNATE enough to have AVOIDED and
> REJECTED such infestations.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> ... Rest in Peace ...
> ... George Richard Tiller, MD ...
> ... A True American HERO! ...
> ... August 8, 1941 - May 31, 2009 ...
> ... Visit -- http://iamdrtiller.com ...
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>
>> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
>> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>>
>> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
>> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>>
>> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
>> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
>> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
>> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
>> an RRR Cultist.
>>
>> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
>> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
>> is 100% HARMLESS.
> As is man/dog marriage, father/daughter marriage, or brother/sister
> marriage...
Wrong on all counts, since in the first, no animal can give its
CONENT to being married -- a basic requirement. And a in the other
two cases, births can result, and it has been known for centuries that
familial inbreeding often results in amplification of genetic defects.
Meanwhile -- same-sex marriage is **100%** HARMLESS, and there
is NO valid reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
"Gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>
>> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
>> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
> Evolution -- the belief that populations of fish produced, over
> generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not
> science.
Wrong. The process of evolution started 'WAY before fish. A
billion years and more before. And the diverging paths began
right from the get-gp. Ergo, by the time fih came a long, there
already were MANY differnt species of them.
> Intelligent design...
...a dishonet term of the stupidity called "creationism"...
> ... is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why?
> Because none of them are observable ortestable/verifiable.
Visit the Grand Canyon with a paleontologist some time, and
then get back to us.
<flush RRR-cultish popaganda>
gabriel
<tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:14:41 -0500
: gabriel <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Falsified his drawing is more accurate. He faked them to look
: > similar, and his faked drawings were still in science
: > textbooks as of a decade ago. Talk about dishonesty.
:
: Haekel's drawings are still widely used because of the
: way he laid everything out in tabular form. I remember sitting
: in a doctor's office admiring the beautiful drawings, but
: I did not know where they came from.
:
: There are photographs that show the same thing. It just isn't as
: clear.
Bingo. He fudged his drawings to make them seem more similar - as
you point out, they don't look so similar when we look at actual
photographs of them, as opposed to his faked drawings that were
doctored to make them look more similar, and the faked drawings
themselves still used in science textbooks as recently as the
past 10 years.
:
: > Be that as it may, every single animal's embryo's are going to
: > look identical if you go early enough in their life cycle - sort
: > of unavoidable if we all start off as a cluster of cells and grow
: > from there, as cells obviously look similar.
:
: Actually there are bigger differences at very early stages.
: The biggest one depends on whether the embryo sits on a yolk
: sack or not.
Not early enough where all embryos have barely gotten started,
mere days after conception.
:
: > So using this logic,
: > we all must have the same parents since we all look the same
: > early enough in our development cycle.
:
: No. We are all distant cousins. And more distant cousins
: with apes and chimpanzees. DNA karyotypes show clearly where
: chromosomes 2a and 2b of the apes fused to make our chromosome
: 2. This is why humans have only twenty-three pairs
: of chromosomes instead of twenty-four.
:
: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype
No, you BELIEVE we are all distant cousins. Huge difference. And
the belief that we are is not observable, not testable and not
verifiable - one can only believe in it.
:
: > This only shows that the belief that any similarities in
: > embryos is any proof whatsoever that they evolved one from
: > the other is just another belief.
:
: It isn't proof, but it is suggestive enough to require an
: explanation. How does creationism explain this?
There's nothing to explain that every single embryo is of course
going to look similar the closer you get to conception.
:
: > The claim that we evolved from such ancestors is
: > unobservable, untestable and unverifiable.
:
: As opposed to the claim that your religion has access to secret
: divine revelation?
No origins theory can qualify as science. Not one of them is
observable, testable or verifiable.
:
: > The claim that populations of [flies] can evolve, over
: > generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] > at all
: > is not observable, not testable and not verifiable, no
: > matter what
: > animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence.
:
: DNA karyotypes show that humans evolved from the
: great apes.
No, your BELIEF that DNA karyotypes "show" this. Meanwhile, back
up that belief by at the very minimum showing populations of
[apes] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
no longer [apes] at all, let alone human beings. Ah that's right
- impossible to do so. No one can do any such thing no matter
what animal you replace with [apes]. Not science.
:
: > Science
: > disproves the fish to man version of evolution. One can only
: > believe in it.
:
: You were a fish. Your mother was a fish. Look in a mirror.
: Don't you see the resemblance?
Weren't we apes? Or wait, weren't we reptiles? Hold on, some say
we were amphibians. Or was it pond scum? I guess they can say we
once were whatever they claim we were. Nothing more than science
fiction masquerading as science - none of it observable, testable
or verifiable.
Please show a single observation of your version of evolution:
populations of, say, [flies] evolving over generations into
animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all (just like
hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer
fish at all). And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
to man. Fact is such a belief is impossible to observe in action,
making it also impossible to test/verify. Bingo. Not science by
definition. No origin belief can qualify as science, either. Yet
it's logically undeniable that we were created - just like a
building is proof of a builder, moreso a building so advanced in
its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles
on a continuous basis, and even construct another building just
like it next to it. Just like a computer and computer program
that is meaningfully decoded and acted upon is proof of a
designer, let alone something amazingly more complex like DNA
instructions and the ability for them to be meaningfully decoded
and acted up to miraculously build organic machines.
Or you can take the word of God-rejecting evolutionists, who also
must believe nothing created everything.
gabriel
<www.LayoffRemedy.com> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:39:41 -0500,
: "Gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: > (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
:
:
: >> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
: >> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
: >>
: >> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
: >> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
:
: > Evolution -- the belief that populations of fish produced, over
: > generations, hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings) is not
: > science.
:
: Wrong. The process of evolution started 'WAY before fish.
I never said the process started with fish. But once upon a time,
it was fish that eventually evolved into hippos, giraffes, eagles
and human beings.
: A
: billion years and more before. And the diverging paths began
: right from the get-gp. Ergo, by the time fih came a long, there
: already were MANY differnt species of them.
:
: > Intelligent design...
:
: ...a dishonet term of the stupidity called "creationism"...
:
: > ... is also not science. Neither is any other origins theory. Why?
: > Because none of them are observable ortestable/verifiable.
:
: Visit the Grand Canyon with a paleontologist some time, and
: then get back to us.
:
: <flush RRR-cultish popaganda>
The observable, testable and verifiable truth that populations of
Chris
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 13:08:15 -0800,
> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>>
>>> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
>>> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>>>
>>> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
>>> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>>>
>>> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
>>> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
>>> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
>>> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
>>> an RRR Cultist.
>>>
>>> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
>>> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
>>> is 100% HARMLESS.
>
>> As is man/dog marriage, father/daughter marriage, or brother/sister
>> marriage...
>
> Wrong on all counts, since in the first, no animal can give its
> CONENT to being married -- a basic requirement.
Nor can an animal give consent to being harbored. Thus, better charge every
dog owner with false imprisonment.
> And a in the other
> two cases, births can result,
Irrelevant since such births can result whether or NOT they are married, AND
not all people have the ability to bear children.......... next.
> and it has been known for centuries that
> familial inbreeding often results in amplification of genetic defects.
>
> Meanwhile -- same-sex marriage is **100%** HARMLESS, and there
> is NO valid reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
Nor is there any for excluding man-dog couples, father-daughter couples, or
same-parents couples from marriage. And while we're at it, let's toss in
polygamy too.
Stile4aly
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 06:47:30 -0800, Trawley Trash
>
> <tr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> :
> : > Falsified his drawing is more accurate. He faked them to look
> : > similar, and his faked drawings were still in science
> : > textbooks as of a decade ago. Talk about dishonesty.
> :
> : Haekel's drawings are still widely used because of the
> : way he laid everything out in tabular form. I remember sitting
> : in a doctor's office admiring the beautiful drawings, but
> : I did not know where they came from.
> :
> : There are photographs that show the same thing. It just isn't as
> : clear.
>
> Bingo. He fudged his drawings to make them seem more similar - as
> you point out, they don't look so similar when we look at actual
> photographs of them, as opposed to his faked drawings that were
> doctored to make them look more similar, and the faked drawings
> themselves still used in science textbooks as recently as the
> past 10 years.
Which science textbook was that?
Also, please explain why human embryos develop pharyngeal arches which
in fish develop into gills whereas in humans they develop into the
pharynx? Why would we display identical embryonic development of
pharyngeal arches?
> :
> : > Be that as it may, every single animal's embryo's are going to
> : > look identical if you go early enough in their life cycle - sort
> : > of unavoidable if we all start off as a cluster of cells and grow
> : > from there, as cells obviously look similar.
> :
> : Actually there are bigger differences at very early stages.
> : The biggest one depends on whether the embryo sits on a yolk
> : sack or not.
>
> Not early enough where all embryos have barely gotten started,
> mere days after conception.
>
> :
> : > So using this logic,
> : > we all must have the same parents since we all look the same
> : > early enough in our development cycle.
> :
> : No. We are all distant cousins. And more distant cousins
> : with apes and chimpanzees. DNA karyotypes show clearly where
> : chromosomes 2a and 2b of the apes fused to make our chromosome
> : 2. This is why humans have only twenty-three pairs
> : of chromosomes instead of twenty-four.
> :
> : seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karyotype
>
> No, you BELIEVE we are all distant cousins. Huge difference. And
> the belief that we are is not observable, not testable and not
> verifiable - one can only believe in it.
Actually, there is a test. We know that all extant species of ape
have 24 chromosomes except for humans which have 23 chromosomes. If
humans evolved from some other ape, then we must have either lost a
chromosome (which is unlikely since the loss of that much genetic
information would almost certainly be fatal) or two chromosomes merged
into a single chromosome. When we look at the human chromosome 2 we
find that it looks exactly like two chromosomes found in the genome of
other apes which have joined together at their ends, including a
deactivated centromere and an extended telomere in the middle of the
chromosome, when telomeres are normally found at the end of the
telomere.
Why would we possess a chromosome that looks exactly like a fusion of
2 ape chromosomes if we are a separately created species? Why would
God create humans and apes in such a way as to make it appear that we
share a common ancestor if we do not? Certainly you're not suggesting
that God would lie to us.
> : > This only shows that the belief that any similarities in
> : > embryos is any proof whatsoever that they evolved one from
> : > the other is just another belief.
> :
> : It isn't proof, but it is suggestive enough to require an
> : explanation. How does creationism explain this?
>
> There's nothing to explain that every single embryo is of course
> going to look similar the closer you get to conception.
But why should they appear so similar. Evolution answers this
question. If we share common ancestry, then we must all develop in
similar ways. Creationism has no such requirement.
> :
> : > The claim that we evolved from such ancestors is
> : > unobservable, untestable and unverifiable.
> :
> : As opposed to the claim that your religion has access to secret
> : divine revelation?
>
> No origins theory can qualify as science. Not one of them is
> observable, testable or verifiable.
Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true.
> :
> : > The claim that populations of [flies] can evolve, over
> : > generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] > at all
> : > is not observable, not testable and not verifiable, no
> : > matter what
> : > animal you replace with [flies] in that sentence.
> :
> : DNA karyotypes show that humans evolved from the
> : great apes.
>
> No, your BELIEF that DNA karyotypes "show" this. Meanwhile, back
> up that belief by at the very minimum showing populations of
> [apes] evolving, over generations, into animals that are clearly
> no longer [apes] at all, let alone human beings. Ah that's right
> - impossible to do so. No one can do any such thing no matter
> what animal you replace with [apes]. Not science.
Humans are still apes. Even Linneaus, a good Protestant, recognized
this:
"It is not pleasing to me that I must place humans among the primates,
but man is intimately familiar with himself. Let's not quibble over
words. It will be the same to me whatever name is applied. But I
desperately seek from you and from the whole world a general
difference between men and simians from the principles of Natural
History. I certainly know of none. If only someone might tell me one!
If I called man a simian or vice versa I would bring together all the
theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to, in accordance with the law
of Natural History."
> : > Science
> : > disproves the fish to man version of evolution. One can only
> : > believe in it.
> :
> : You were a fish. Your mother was a fish. Look in a mirror.
> : Don't you see the resemblance?
>
> Weren't we apes? Or wait, weren't we reptiles? Hold on, some say
> we were amphibians. Or was it pond scum? I guess they can say we
> once were whatever they claim we were. Nothing more than science
> fiction masquerading as science - none of it observable, testable
> or verifiable.
We are apes. We are Primates. We are Mammals. We are Tetrapods. We
are Chordates. We are Animals. We share common ancestry with other
Apes, other Primates, other Mammals, other Tetrapods, other Chordates,
and other animals. Back at the chordate stage, our common ancestor
would have been a fish like creature, though certainly not a modern
fish. At the Tetrapod stage, our common ancestor would have been a a
lizard like or amphibian like creature.
> Please show a single observation of your version of evolution:
> populations of, say, [flies] evolving over generations into
> animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all (just like
> hippos, giraffes, eagles and human beings are clearly no longer
> fish at all). And you can replace [flies] with any animal known
> to man. Fact is such a belief is impossible to observe in action,
> making it also impossible to test/verify. Bingo. Not science by
> definition. No origin belief can qualify as science, either. Yet
> it's logically undeniable that we were created - just like a
> building is proof of a builder, moreso a building so advanced in
> its design it can adapt to its environment, remove dirt particles
> on a continuous basis, and even construct another building just
> like it next to it. Just like a computer and computer program
> that is meaningfully decoded and acted upon is proof of a
> designer, let alone something amazingly more complex like DNA
> instructions and the ability for them to be meaningfully decoded
> and acted up to miraculously build organic machines.
For millions of years, ants, bees, wasps, and spiders (and other
animals) built structures more complex than anything built by humans.
These creatures are not intelligent, by any human measure. So, it is
possible for design to occur without intelligence.
You say that because we see design, that there must be a designer.
Natural selection is a designer.
> Or you can take the word of God-rejecting evolutionists, who also
> must believe nothing created everything.
By what right do you suggest that Trawley or I reject God? I cannot
speak for Trawley, but I believe in God as do a great many people who
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
Johannes von Ebersdorf <eber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> You clearly have no understanding of evolution. You're babbling.
That's about all that loon is good for. Publicly demonstrating his
ignorance -- thereby doing society a favor by earning �� OCR ��
Points!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The One HUGE Contribution
that Overt Bigots Make to Society:
Earning �� OCR �� Points!
One thing is for sure: No one will ever see an INTELLIGENT
RRR Cult bigot. I.e., those who *openly* oppose the right
of all girls and women who so choose to access the remedy of
abortion-upon-request (Anti-Choicers)... or who seek to DENY
access to across-the-board EQUAL rights (including the right to
marry their chosen same-sex partners) to gays. Or both. (It's
normally both. With most such bigots, it's usually in for a penny,
in for a pound.). Bigotry and IGNORANCE go together.
The ONLY thing that such sociopaths are really good for is
something that all bigots who have openly declared support for
the above two hate-agendas do VERY well: every time they do
it, they automatically build up their own personal stockpiles of
�� OCR �� Points.
And the more Points they earn, the more LUDICROUS those
caricatures of human beings become. And the more society
becomes AWARE, at a now-accelerating pace, that those loath-
some agendas are something that NO intelligent, sensible, or
fair-minded person would want ANYTHING to do with.
So TO all of those who DO so publicly make such total fools
of themselves, leading to the ultimate auto-destruction of their
hate-agendas -- the egalitarians who support, defend, and pro-
mote human/civil rights and personal liberties are everywhere
PRAISING you for this ONE aspect of your personality defect
that accomplishes something GOOD. By earning all those virtual
�� OCR �� Points, you actually (albeit inadvertently) ARE making
a relevant contribution to hastening the *demise* of bigotry,
and in the process you therefore are contributing to making the
USA a far BETTER place.
Before much longer, the American people will reach the point
at which they would find attending a rat fight to be preferable
to having any association with your agendas -- just as happened
with the segregationists. AND -- just as happened to the segreg-
ationists after their agendas swirled down the Drain of Extinction,
those who remain bigots of the *above* ilk will almost all bottle up
their hatefulness in their minds and never openly express it, so
as not to be regarded by their neighbors and society as pariahs.
Now that this more recent set of bigoted agendas is going
down the drain at an ever-accelerating pace, the process is
becoming very entertaining theater for all who are fair-minded
egalitarians. Because the RRR cultists are SO bone-ignorant
that they either don't realize that they're making this positive
contribution, or else they just they can't help themselves. (Yet.)
And in the process, they can't even present any FACTS to sup-
port their hate-agendas, because NO such facts even EXIST!
It's FUN to watch, since the ultimate outcome will be so
BENEFICIAL to America... and to societies all over the world
that will be looking up us for our ENDING these forms of bigotry,
and thus becoming far more admirable and worthy of emulation.
America has done it before -- when it got RID of segregation.
So the precedent for this was set very nicely, 45 years ago.
Most of the egalitarians still living who helped to guide *those*
agendas into oblivion are doubtlessly watching and assisting
*these* agendas to the same doom with equal enthusiasm and
relish! (We've done this before, and we're LOVING this process!)
The Points the bigots earn are virtual, of course, but the
*process* of their earning them has a very REAL impact. That's
why "OCR" stands for �� Operation Consciousness-Raising ��.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>> "Chris" <re...@juno.com> wrote:
>>> (�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com> wrote:
>>>> Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
>>>> would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
>>>>
>>>> Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
>>>> DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
>>>>
>>>> Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
>>>> as dolts nevertheless, if they qualify as BIGOTS.
>>>>
>>>> ALL of the RRR Cultists hatefully and irrationally desire to see
>>>> millions of girls' and women's future opportunities disrupted as a
>>>> result of their being FORCED to gestate UNwanted pregnancies to
>>>> term against their will. That is the *primary* litmus test for BEING
>>>> an RRR Cultist.
>>>>
>>>> And almost all of those SAME bigoted loons irrationally oppose
>>>> same-sex marriage, too, despite the fact that same-sex marriage
>>>> is 100% HARMLESS.
>>> As is man/dog marriage, father/daughter marriage, or brother/sister
>>> marriage...
>> Wrong on all counts, since in the first, no animal can give its
>> CONSENT to being married -- a basic requirement.
> Nor can an animal give consent to being harbored. Thus, better
> charge every dog owner with false imprisonment.
Your clutching-at-straws irrationality is duly noted.
>> And a in the other two cases, births can result,
> Irrelevant since such births can result whether or NOT they are married,
> AND not all people have the ability to bear children.
I see NO reason to deny blood relatives who CANNOT reproduce
the right to marry.
>> ...and it has been known for centuries that familial inbreeding
>> often results in amplification of genetic defects.
>>
>> Meanwhile -- same-sex marriage is **100%** HARMLESS, and there
>> is NO valid reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
<aready-covered points snipped.>
Bill Taylor
"(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.dthe4tredy.com> " <x...@m.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:46:21 -0500,
> Johannes von Ebersdorf <eber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > You clearly have no understanding of evolution. You're babbling.
>
> That's about all that loon is good for.
I'd expect that sort of attitude from residents in a state where
babies have no more protection than cattle in a slaughterhouse.
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
[[[ IGNORE the LYONG subject header, above, by a submoronic
bigot. The ACTUAL post is presented below. ]]] ---
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:19:16 +0100,
Submoronic Bigot, Bill Taylor <nob...@nymu.eu> wrote:
(An APPROPRIATE e-mail address -- Taylor IS a NOBODY!)
<flush crap>
Original post follows:
= = = = = = = =
Calling EVOLUTION "Darwinism" is as DUMB as it
would be to call GRAVITY "Newtonism."
Evolution-deniers help to REMIND everyone of what complete
DOLTS the RRR Cult lemmings are.
Not ALL RRR Cult lemmings are THAT moronic, but they qualify
Chris
When YOU attempt to change the legal definition of "marriage", that's all
good and well. But when I propose the same action, suddenly it becomes a
straw man.
>
>>> And a in the other two cases, births can result,
>
>> Irrelevant since such births can result whether or NOT they are
>> married,
>> AND not all people have the ability to bear children.
>
> I see NO reason to deny blood relatives who CANNOT reproduce
> the right to marry.
And for those who CAN?
>
>>> ...and it has been known for centuries that familial inbreeding
>>> often results in amplification of genetic defects.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile -- same-sex marriage is **100%** HARMLESS, and there
>>> is NO valid reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
>
> <aready-covered points snipped.>
You just forgot to snip your OWN above "aready-covered" points. Or are YOUR
points exempt from such editing?
(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
I've NEVER attempted any such thing. In America (with the exception
of some polygamists that have gotten away with it), marriage has ALWAYS
been the joining of two of-age/not-too-closely-blood-related people who
each have become licensed by the state to do so, by a person authorized
to perform the wedding, in the presence of one or more witnesses -- where
BOTH people give CONSENT.
Only mindless BIGOTS have attempted to apply artificial EXCLUSIONS to
that, as we saw the doltish segregationists do to interracial couples, and
as equally-hateful and doltish RRR/RCC/LDS Cult losers have been doing to
same-sex couples. The GOOD news is that the segregationists totally LOST,
and the homophobes *are* losing, and ultimately will TOTALLY lose.
>>>> And a in the other two cases, births can result,
>>> Irrelevant since such births can result whether or NOT they are
>>> married, AND not all people have the ability to bear children.
>> I see NO reason to deny blood relatives who CANNOT reproduce
>> the right to marry.
> And for those who CAN?
Genetic science shows there is VALID reason for not allowing them to
marry. Due to high probablity of birth defects resulting.
>>>> ...and it has been known for centuries that familial inbreeding
>>>> often results in amplification of genetic defects.
>>>>
>>>> Meanwhile -- same-sex marriage is **100%** HARMLESS, and there
>>>> is NO valid reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
>>>>>> They are *quite* the collection of LOSERS!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> America's worst infestation. And causing this country to be
>>>>>> an embarrassment before those other countries of the world
>>>>>> which have been FORTUNATE enough to have AVOIDED and
>>>>>> REJECTED such infestations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rest in Peace
Chris
CLEARLY, you have. (see below)
> In America (with the exception
> of some polygamists that have gotten away with it), marriage has ALWAYS
> been the joining of two of-age/not-too-closely-blood-related people who
> each have become licensed by the state to do so, by a person authorized
> to perform the wedding, in the presence of one or more witnesses -- where
> BOTH people give CONSENT.
You forgot the gender part.
>
> Only mindless BIGOTS have attempted to apply artificial EXCLUSIONS to
> that, as we saw the doltish segregationists do to interracial couples, and
> as equally-hateful and doltish RRR/RCC/LDS Cult losers have been doing to
> same-sex couples. The GOOD news is that the segregationists totally LOST,
> and the homophobes *are* losing, and ultimately will TOTALLY lose.
>
>>>>> And a in the other two cases, births can result,
>
>>>> Irrelevant since such births can result whether or NOT they are
>>>> married, AND not all people have the ability to bear children.
>
>>> I see NO reason to deny blood relatives who CANNOT reproduce
>>> the right to marry.
>
>> And for those who CAN?
>
> Genetic science shows there is VALID reason for not allowing them to
> marry. Due to high probablity of birth defects resulting.
Since when does marriage = birth?
gabriel
<stil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Then back up your claim.
Show a single observation or test case of the fish to man version
of evolution: populations of [flies] evolving, over generations,
into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at all. And you
can replace [flies] with any animal you wish.
Until anyone does (and no one has), the belief remains just that
- a belief and not science. You want to claim otherwise - back up
that claim by providing such an observation or test case, rather
than just giving reasons you have faith in your belief.
:
: > :
: > : > The claim that populations of [flies] can evolve, over
Stile4aly
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:22:53 -0800 (PST), Stile4aly
>
Sure thing. Perhaps you missed this from above:
> : Actually, there is a test. We know that all extant species of ape
> : have 24 chromosomes except for humans which have 23 chromosomes. If
> : humans evolved from some other ape, then we must have either lost a
> : chromosome (which is unlikely since the loss of that much genetic
> : information would almost certainly be fatal) or two chromosomes merged
> : into a single chromosome. When we look at the human chromosome 2 we
> : find that it looks exactly like two chromosomes found in the genome of
> : other apes which have joined together at their ends, including a
> : deactivated centromere and an extended telomere in the middle of the
> : chromosome, when telomeres are normally found at the end of the
> : telomere.
> :
> : Why would we possess a chromosome that looks exactly like a fusion of
> : 2 ape chromosomes if we are a separately created species? Why would
> : God create humans and apes in such a way as to make it appear that we
> : share a common ancestor if we do not? Certainly you're not suggesting
> : that God would lie to us.
> Until anyone does (and no one has), the belief remains just that
> - a belief and not science. You want to claim otherwise - back up
> that claim by providing such an observation or test case, rather
> than just giving reasons you have faith in your belief.
Well, here are some observed instances of speciation, but you'll
doubtless reject them.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Essentially, you're asking for evolution to demonstrate something that
evolution doesn't predict would happen. A fruit fly will never evolve
into a non fruit fly, just as a primate will never evolve into a non
primate, or a chordate into a non chordate.. What will happen is that
one species will evolve into many different sub species, which has
been observed. Some of those species may be morphologically different
from others, which has been observed. Some of these species may be
better suited to a particular niche in the environment while others
may be outcompeted and go extinct, which has been observed. As a
result, you'll end up with two sub species in two different niches
with two different morphologies, but they still retain the traits of
their parent species, just as we retain many traits of apes, of
primates, of mammals, etc.
Consider, though, what is a chordate? It's any animal with a nerve
chord. What is a tetrapod? Any chordate with four limbs. What is a
mammal? Any air breathing tetrapod with sweat glands, fur, 3 middle
ear bones, and a neocortex. What is a primate? Any mammal with a
large brain, stereoscopic vision, and about a dozen other shared
traits. As you get into Homonoids, Homonids, Hominins, and Homo
Sapiens you find increasing degrees of specialization. That's how
evolution moves; from the general to the specific.
<snip>
Mendori
wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> On Nov 12, 8:26 pm, "(�`�.�Craig Chilton�.���) <www.LayoffRemedy.com>
> " <x...@m.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Nothing worth reading. This dumb mother fucker claims "sexting" iz
> harmless, go figure ...
>
> --
What exactly is wrong with sexting? It's a perfectly valid form of
erotic romance, like lurid love letters.
its-just-a-ride-01
<usenetlegends...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
> It's RUDE CRUDE and SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE for one ..
> And now we see it's dangerous.
>
> Hope Witsell's Sexting Suicide
> By Emily Bazelon Posted Tuesday, Dec. 8, 2009, at 2:08 PM ET
>
> Girl looking at cell phone. Click image to expand.Can "sexting" lead
> to suicide?In September, a 13-year-old girl in Florida named Hope
> Witsell hanged herself. Raised in a rural Florida suburb, she was the
> only child of a church-going couple who met in the post office where
> they're both employed. "She often went fishing with her father in her
> big, white-framed sunglasses," according to the excellent reporting in
> this story in the St. Petersburg Times.
>
> Last week, Hope's suicide became the second with a clear link to
> sexting and the peer torture that can follow from it. At the end of
> seventh grade last spring, Hope sent a photo of her breasts to a boy
> she liked, and the picture went viral at her school. "Tons of people
> talk about me behind my back and I hate it because they call me a
> whore!" Hope wrote in her journal before her death. Jessie Logan, who
> was 18 and lived outside Cincinnati, hanged herself last July after
> nude photos she sent to her boyfriend circulated widely among
> teenagers she knew. What explains this awful chain of events that
> leads to tragedy?
>
> As a grown-up and a parent, at first I was skeptical about how
> prevalent anything this blindly risky could really be. But I'm
> starting to think I was wrong. In three polls that have been conducted
> on the prevalence of sexting, the numbers are fairly high. The latest,
> which looks methodologically solid, is an MTV-Associated Press poll
> reported last week of about 1,450 teens and young adults aged 14 to
> 24. More than one-quarter said they'd been involved in sexting in some
> way. Ten percent had sent out naked pictures of themselves on a cell
> phone or online. And 17 percent of the kids who'd received such a
> picture reported passing it along to someone else.
>
> Those results match up fairly well with research by Sameer Hinduja and
> Justin Patchin, academics who direct the Cyberbullying Research
> Center, based on their 2007 survey of about 1,900 middle-schoolers.
> About 12 percent of the kids in that survey said they'd taken a
> picture of someone and posted it online without permission. That's a
> lower number than the MTV-AP poll, and the photos involved weren't
> necessarily sexually compromising. But these kids are younger, and the
> data was collected two years ago. So, again, dismaying. "Kids do it
> without thinking," Hinduju says of sexting. "It's a courtship ritual
> between boyfriend and girlfriend. Or in a more severe situation, there
> is coercion or trickery to get the picture. But it's becoming
> commonplace behavior, even if it seems moronic to you and me. We're
> talking about the neurological immaturity of youth."
Yeah it sounds pretty dangerous, like all those kids that killed
themselves after being abused by priests.. I'd say priests and sexting
are on par. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Ed
(-:arl
<usenetlegends0...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
(där'wĭ-nĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and
others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop
through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that
increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
Also called Darwinian theory.
http://www.answers.com/topic/darwinism
Dar·win·ism (därw-nzm)
n.
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and
others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop
through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that
increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
Also called Darwinian theory.
Darwin·ist n.
Darwin·istic adj.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Darwinism [ˈdɑːwɪˌnɪzəm], Darwinian theory
n
(Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) the theory of the
origin of animal and plant species by evolution through a process of
natural selection Compare Lamarckism See also Neo-Darwinism
Darwinist , Darwinite n & adj
Darwinistic adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged 6th Edition 2003.
© William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers
1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
Darwinism (därw-nzm)
A theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and
others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop
through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that
increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.
Darwin's ideas have been refined and modified by subsequent
researchers, but his theories still form the foundation of the
scientific understanding of the evolution of life. Darwinism is often
contrasted with another theory of biological evolution called
Lamarckism, based on the now-discredited ideas of Jean-Baptiste
Lamarck. See Note at evolution.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights
reserved.
Darwinism
the theory of evolution by natural selection of those species best
adapted to survive the struggle for existence. — Darwinian, n., ad).
See also: Evolution
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights
reserved
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Darwinism.
Or whatever you say. eh?
Syd M.
He's mad that no one in their right mind would sextext him.
PDW
Kookaburra
"RedDog" <reddo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:817e86bb-fa94-43e4...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Sydley, you dumbass. Why are you still fucking with us?
no child would ever go near you bboby, still raping little children,
Hmmmmmmmmm.
gabriel
God didn't lie to us. People lie to us, selling their beliefs
dishonestly as facts. This is not a test case of the fish to man
version of evolution in action. This is simply a case of
evolutionists beliefs attached to what those chromosomes mean to
them, and what they want it to mean to everyone else. Not an
observation or test case of the actual belief itself: populations
of apes evolving over generations into man and then this
comparison of their chromosomes being made showing the belief
actually happening. Just a belief about chromosomes.
>
> > Until anyone does (and no one has), the belief remains just that
> > - a belief and not science. You want to claim otherwise - back up
> > that claim by providing such an observation or test case, rather
> > than just giving reasons you have faith in your belief.
>
> Well, here are some observed instances of speciation, but you'll
> doubtless reject them.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
animals that are a slightly different species of [flies], ~but
still [flies]~! The fish to man version of evolution: they'd
evolve over generations into animals that are clearly no longer
[flies] at all. Speciation is not at all the fish to man version
of evolution.
So again, show an actual test case of the fish to man version of
evolution in action. Populations of [flies] evolving, over
generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at
all (just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no
longer fish at all). And you can replace [flies] with any animal
you wish.
>
> Essentially, you're asking for evolution to demonstrate something that
> evolution doesn't predict would happen. A fruit fly will never evolve
> into a non fruit fly, just as a primate will never evolve into a non
> primate, or a chordate into a non chordate.. What will happen is that
> one species will evolve into many different sub species, which has
> been observed.
>
Evolutionists certainly claim that:
- populations of fish evolved over generations into amphibians.
- populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
- populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals (including hippos and giraffes).
- populations of ape-like creatures (mammals) evolved over
generations into people.
- that somewhere in there eagles just sort of came about too by
evolving from animals that were clearly not even birds at all.
So yes, they do in fact believe populations of fish evolved over
generations, once upon a time, eventually into hippos, giraffes,
eagles and human beings. To claim they don't believe this is to
either be dishonest, or ignorant of what they claim.
> Some of those species may be morphologically different
> from others, which has been observed. Some of these species may be
> better suited to a particular niche in the environment while others
> may be outcompeted and go extinct, which has been observed. As a
> result, you'll end up with two sub species in two different niches
> with two different morphologies, but they still retain the traits of
> their parent species, just as we retain many traits of apes, of
> primates, of mammals, etc.
>
> Consider, though, what is a chordate? It's any animal with a nerve
> chord. What is a tetrapod? Any chordate with four limbs. What is a
> mammal? Any air breathing tetrapod with sweat glands, fur, 3 middle
> ear bones, and a neocortex. What is a primate? Any mammal with a
> large brain, stereoscopic vision, and about a dozen other shared
> traits. As you get into Homonoids, Homonids, Hominins, and Homo
> Sapiens you find increasing degrees of specialization. That's how
> evolution moves; from the general to the specific.
Correction: that's how you ~believe~ the unobservable, and
impossible to show a test case version of evolution moves. The
fact remains those beliefs are impossible to observe and no test
case can be shown of that version of evolution in action.
>
> <snip>
Stile4aly
So, your belief is that God designed all life to share differing
degrees of similarity which match up when species are categorized both
genetically and morphologically. He designed them this way to such a
degree as to make a human chromosome look exactly like the fusion of
two ape chromosomes. In other words, God is making things look like
evolution occurred even though they didn't. In other words, you're
saying God is lying to us.
>
>
> > > Until anyone does (and no one has), the belief remains just that
> > > - a belief and not science. You want to claim otherwise - back up
> > > that claim by providing such an observation or test case, rather
> > > than just giving reasons you have faith in your belief.
>
> > Well, here are some observed instances of speciation, but you'll
> > doubtless reject them.
>
> >http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>
> Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
> animals that are a slightly different species of [flies], ~but
> still [flies]~! The fish to man version of evolution: they'd
> evolve over generations into animals that are clearly no longer
> [flies] at all. Speciation is not at all the fish to man version
> of evolution.
>
> So again, show an actual test case of the fish to man version of
> evolution in action. Populations of [flies] evolving, over
> generations, into animals that are clearly no longer [flies] at
> all (just like hippos, giraffes, eagles and people are clearly no
> longer fish at all). And you can replace [flies] with any animal
> you wish.
The society for the protection of strawmen would like a word with
you. You have in your mind some concept of what evolution is that is
different from what science says evolution is, and you want me to
prove the notion you have in your head. The problem is that I can't
prove that notion, because that notion isn't what happens. Flies will
always evolve into new species of flies. Those species will evolve
into new sub species, new sub sub species and so on, and in a few
hundred to thousand years (given the short generation time of flies)
provided that a selective pressure is applied, you'll end up with sub
sub sub species of flies that are morphologically different and non-
interfertile.
> > Essentially, you're asking for evolution to demonstrate something that
> > evolution doesn't predict would happen. A fruit fly will never evolve
> > into a non fruit fly, just as a primate will never evolve into a non
> > primate, or a chordate into a non chordate.. What will happen is that
> > one species will evolve into many different sub species, which has
> > been observed.
>
> Evolutionists certainly claim that:
> - populations of fish evolved over generations into amphibians.
But they were still chordates.
> - populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
> reptiles.
But they were still vertabrates
> - populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
> mammals (including hippos and giraffes).
But they were still tetrapods (do you see us moving down from phylum
to class, to order?) What's more, egg laying mammals as well as other
monotremes show a clear living transitional animal between reptiles
and mammals.
> - populations of ape-like creatures (mammals) evolved over
> generations into people.
They were still primates, and in many cases still homonids. What is
your explanation for the 13 different homonid species we've
discovered, not to mention the species found in the genus ranging from
ardipithecus to paranthropus that show a clear chronological increase
in human like characteristics, brain capacity, and use of tools? More
fakes?
> - that somewhere in there eagles just sort of came about too by
> evolving from animals that were clearly not even birds at all.
Eagles evolved from more primitive birds of prey which evolved from a
probably omnivorous avian ancestor, which evolved from an omnivorous
Archaeopteryx like creature, which evolved from the theropod family of
dinosaurs. This is vastly simplified and hardly covers the discrete
variations that occurred over the millenia.
Let me ask you a question: If I have a full head of hair and you start
plucking hairs from my head, when do I stop being hairy and become
bald? Is it only when you pluck the last hair? If so, why is it that
one hair makes the difference between being hirsute and bald?
> So yes, they do in fact believe populations of fish evolved over
> generations, once upon a time, eventually into hippos, giraffes,
> eagles and human beings. To claim they don't believe this is to
> either be dishonest, or ignorant of what they claim.
Fish did not evolve directly into any of those creatures. What's
more, if you really want your mind blown, according to the cladists,
we are still fish.
<snip>
It seems clear that no test can be provided to your satisfaction, but
frankly I'm uninterested in your satisfaction. Your choice to be
ignorant is ultimately of no consequence.
gabriel
So flies always evolved *from* flies, is your claim to what they
believe?
So where did flies come from then? Was that the original life
form? No. They came from animals that were clearly not flies at
all.
Where did people come from? From populations of apes. Where did
apes come from? Populations of reptiles. Where did reptiles come
from? Populations of amphibians. And so on.
So human beings came from animals that were clearly not human
beings at all once upon a time, so they claim. And so on.
If what I just said is wrong, by all means please cite the
scientific source to show exactly in detail how it is wrong. You
don't seem to be knowledgeable of the claims of the fish to man
evolution that Dawkins worships as the holy grail of the origin
of all biological diversity of life.
If you can't even come to realize this is exactly what they are
claiming, it's not possible to debate the topic.
Ray Fischer
But you do.
> People lie to us, selling their beliefs
>dishonestly as facts.
Like you do.
>> Well, here are some observed instances of speciation, but you'll
>> doubtless reject them.
>>
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
>>
>Speciation: populations of [flies] producing, over generations,
>animals that are a slightly different species of [flies], ~but
>still [flies]~! The fish to man version of evolution: they'd
>evolve over generations into animals that are clearly no longer
>[flies] at all. Speciation is not at all the fish to man version
>of evolution.
>
>So again, show an actual test case of the fish to man version of
>evolution in action.
The insane religious hypocrite demands impossible proof but offers
NONE of his own. It offers not the barest shred of evidence that any
of its cult's mania has any basis in truth whatever.
Evolution is fact. It has been observed and is real.
Your insanity won't change that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net