life still evolving?
Jim Alexander
Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
life forms in a lab.
Can anyone help me?
I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
scientific method.
Oh! And one more thing.
Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
(non-spam; remove "x" before address)
Michael D. Painter
1. Learn what evolution is, then explain why you need it to create life.
2. Learn what evolution is, then learn the time spans usually involved.
3. Learn what evolution is, then explain how it call for "an ever
emerging..."
4.
Hell, why bother. There is such appalling ignorance in this post that it's
not worth going on.
I suspect stupidity rather than ignorance is in play here.
Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>...
Thomas Scharle
In article <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>, ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) writes:
|>
|> Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
|> posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
|> life forms in a lab.
|> Can anyone help me?
|> I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
|> scientific method.
I would suggest that you talk to your mother or your father about
how to create new life.
|> Oh! And one more thing.
|> Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
|> forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
|> and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
This, however, is covered by the talk.origins FAQ.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Jim Alexander
In a previous article, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) says:
>In talk.origins, on thread _life still evolving?_, ad...@pgfn.bc.ca
>(Jim Alexander) wrote:
>
>>
>>Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
>>posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
>>life forms in a lab.
>
>Well, since evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life
>forms, since no scientists has said they can do this in the lab, and
>since scientists are not saying that they know exactly how life
>originated this is not surprising. Now can you tell us what scientists
>do say is the fact of evolution?
>
>>Can anyone help me?
>
>Sure, your best bet is to take a whole bunch of biology courses at the
>university level. Taking one would be a good start.
>
OK. So you created new life forms in your biology class?
Is that what you're saying? Can you describe the species you created and
how long it lived? Has it now "evolved" into a cell that has learned to
cell divide before it dies? What started the cell division process in
this life form you created in you r biology class?
If you can answer any of these questions without referring me to some
other source for these facts, I'll know you were't asleep when the prof
covered this part.
If you can't even answer them yourself without referring me to the same
biology class, then I don't think I'll be any further ahead in my search
for this evidence than you apparently are.
If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas. Since that atmosphere is a
considerably harsher one than today's, I find it odd that the same life
forms can not be re-created by the theoretical lightning and an
atmosphere less toxic to life than ammonia.
So if life forms can't be re-created in the laboratory, the theory that
they were created this way is sheer speculation without any solid
evidence and not to be taken seriously.
>>I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
>>scientific method.
>>Oh! And one more thing.
>>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
>>forms,
>
>Since this is different than any scientific theory of evolution I am
>aware of can you tell me where you read this? What I have heard is
>that evolution predicts fairly continual change in "life forms". We do
>see this, so I don't know what the problem is.
Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
number o years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
a plethora; a small number is something else.
I don't see what the problem is either.
> >>why is the number of
existing life forms and species declining >
>Rather dramatic change in the environment. We have plenty of evidence
>that this has happened several times in the last couple of hundred
>million years.
>
Yes. And you supposedly have dramatic evidence of new species replacing
the ones that died out as a result of an environmental change.
So, where's the new ones? Environmental change and loss of species is
what is supposed to fuel the genetic mutations that result in new species.
>>and no
documented evidence on new ones replacing them? >
>Are you unaware of the evidence of new species, have you ignored it,
>or are you telling a falsehood?
>
Telling a falsehood? Do you mean saying something without facts to back
it up, or deliberately altering the truth?
In the first case, yes, I'm saying something without any facts to back it
up, because I don't have any. If you do, now's your chance.
And I don't mean a referral to a biology course or some news group. Just
tell me what the facts are of creation of new life cells in a laboratory
environment and what species in particular are proven to be a new
species. And not just a viral change of skin surface. A new life form.
In the second case, there is nothing to distort or falsify, since there
is no evidence of either of the creation of new life in a tube or a
documented new species.
Jim Alexander
In a previous article, att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) says:
>In <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander)
>writes:
>>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of
>life
>>forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
>>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
>>
>===>Where in the world did you get that ridiculous idea that
> "evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life forms"?
>
> Libertarius
>
I got it from a guy named Darwin.
He says that new species keep emerging out of the old. So, if life
started with one cell and ended up with the number of life forms we have
today, Plus all the ones that have disppeared over time, then, a plethora
of life forms have emerged as a result of evolution.
Do the math;
Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
number of years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
a plethora; a small number is something else.
How many new life forms or new species per year does that get us?
So, how many new life forms, or even new species have there been
appearing in the last few thousand years?
Oh, and since the mutant species results from a stressor that kills the
current life form but not the mutant, then I could apply that same theory
to the specific case of apes and man. Man has stressors that kill; the
mortgage; the job; the food, etc etc. So, he grows long body hair to
escape the need for a house to protect him from the environment. Next, he
changes his body around a bit so he doesn't need the meat we have now,
and lives healthier.
It doesn't take a mind of much greater IQ than an ape to see which
species will outlive the other.
I mean, NO ape would be dumb enough to spend the rest of his life chained
up to a job so he can pay for his house, then retire in bad health and
die before he enjoys his freedom for very long.
Yes, my arms are getting longer, my IQ lower and my body hair is getting
profuse. Hey! It sure beats the rat-race!
-Jim
Michael D. Painter
As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<5pmurl$2...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>...
> >>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of
life
> >>forms,
> >
> >Since this is different than any scientific theory of evolution I am
> >aware of can you tell me where you read this? What I have heard is
> >that evolution predicts fairly continual change in "life forms". We do
> >see this, so I don't know what the problem is.
>
> Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
> that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
> number o years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
> number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
> a plethora; a small number is something else.
> I don't see what the problem is either.
>
> > >>why is the number of
> existing life forms and species declining >
> >Rather dramatic change in the environment. We have plenty of evidence
> >that this has happened several times in the last couple of hundred
> >million years.
> >
> Yes. And you supposedly have dramatic evidence of new species replacing
> the ones that died out as a result of an environmental change.
> So, where's the new ones? Environmental change and loss of species is
> what is supposed to fuel the genetic mutations that result in new
species.
>
>
> >>and no
> documented evidence on new ones replacing them? >
Elmer Bataitis
Jim Alexander wrote:
=
> Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
> posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
> life forms in a lab.
What do you mean by "life forms"? DNA, or proteins, or viruses, or
bacteria, or multicellular life, or sexually reproducing multicellular
life?
> Can anyone help me?
Want some lab made DNA? Call Research Genetics at 1-800-533-4363; or
some lab made peptides? Call BioSynthesis at 1-800-227-0627; or some
antibodies? Atlantic Antibodies will be glad to help at 1-207-856-6151.
> I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following th=
e
> scientific method.
Why bother? You can just buy the stuff that others have made.
> Oh! And one more thing.
> Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of li=
fe
> forms, =
Where does the thoery of evolution say this??
> why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
> and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
See the FAQ on speciation.
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis =93Hot dog! Smooch city here I come!=94
Planetech Services -Hobbes
716-442-2884 =
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
Jim Alexander wrote:
> > Matt Silberstein wrote:
> If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
> evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
> the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas. Since that atmosphere is a
> considerably harsher one than today's, I find it odd that the same life=
> forms can not be re-created by the theoretical lightning and an
> atmosphere less toxic to life than ammonia.
> So if life forms can't be re-created in the laboratory, the theory that=
> they were created this way is sheer speculation without any solid
> evidence and not to be taken seriously.
Well, not so much that, but rather, taken with a grain of salt.
> Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
> that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by t=
he
> number o years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
> number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, i=
ts
> a plethora; a small number is something else.
> I don't see what the problem is either.
See the FAQ on speciation.
=
> > >>why is the number of
> existing life forms and species declining >
> >Rather dramatic change in the environment. We have plenty of evidence
> >that this has happened several times in the last couple of hundred
> >million years.
> >
> Yes. And you supposedly have dramatic evidence of new species replacing=
> the ones that died out as a result of an environmental change.
> So, where's the new ones? Environmental change and loss of species is
> what is supposed to fuel the genetic mutations that result in new speci=
es.
It will when empty niches are available. Right now, most of these niches
are being occupied by humans and mini-malls, *not* ani-malls ;-)
> >>and no
> documented evidence on new ones replacing them? >
> >Are you unaware of the evidence of new species, have you ignored it,
> >or are you telling a falsehood?
> >
> Telling a falsehood? Do you mean saying something without facts to back=
> it up, or deliberately altering the truth?
> In the first case, yes, I'm saying something without any facts to back =
it
> up, because I don't have any. If you do, now's your chance.
> And I don't mean a referral to a biology course or some news group. Jus=
t
> tell me what the facts are of creation of new life cells in a laborator=
y
> environment and what species in particular are proven to be a new
> species. And not just a viral change of skin surface. A new life form.
> In the second case, there is nothing to distort or falsify, since there=
> is no evidence of either of the creation of new life in a tube or a
> documented new species.
The whole point of the existence of FAQ's and educational institutions
is for information transferral to be more efficient than one to one
teaching.
Elmer Bataitis
Jim Alexander wrote:
> Do the math;
> Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
> that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by t=
he
> number of years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
> number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, i=
ts
> a plethora; a small number is something else.
> How many new life forms or new species per year does that get us?
Well, I just did this. Taking 10,000,000 species existing today (from E.
O. Wilson's "The Diversity of Life") and mulipying by the oft quoted
paleontological dictum that 98% of life no longer exists, and using 3.5
Bya for the appearance first life, I get .143 new species generated per
year. I think that this seems to be lower bound. =
> So, how many new life forms, or even new species have there been
> appearing in the last few thousand years?
See the FAQ on speciation.
> Oh, and since the mutant species results from a stressor that kills the=
> current life form but not the mutant, =
Huh??
> then I could apply that same theory
> to the specific case of apes and man. Man has stressors that kill; the
> mortgage; the job; the food, etc etc. =
Actually, life itself is a terminal condition, Jim ;-)
Rob
ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
>posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
>life forms in a lab.
Ignorance of the facts of evolution is not a problem for those who are
prepared to learn the said facts. Among those facts is this one:
evolutionary theory does not depend in any way upon the creation of
life forms in a lab. If living organisms were easily created from
only non-living matter in a lab, then Darwinian theory would be in
difficulty!
>Can anyone help me?
>I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
>scientific method.
Don't hold your breath waiting for the information you want. Nobody
has it. It doesn't exist.
>Oh! And one more thing.
>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
>forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
The number of existing life forms isn't declining. Check out your
local maternity ward. Ever done any home brewing? And there's that
cheese at the back of the refrigerator that's gone all furry....
As for species, if they didn't go extinct then evolution as we know it
couldn't have happened (at least not to give us the current state of
affairs).
Jim Alexander
In a previous article, rob...@dial.pipex.com (Rob) says:
>ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>
>The number of existing life forms isn't declining. Check out your
>local maternity ward. Ever done any home brewing? And there's that
>cheese at the back of the refrigerator that's gone all furry....
So, you're saying that NEW species are evolving in someone's maternity
ward? What do they look like? How have they evolved from the present
human species? Longer arms? More body hair? Lower IQ?
These are new species we're talking about here, right?
>As for species, if they didn't go extinct then evolution as we know it
>couldn't have happened (at least not to give us the current state of
>affairs).
Over time, there has been, supposedly, new species to replace the extinct
ones. Some have been, supposedly, mutated to survive an environmental
change that would make it impossible for the current species to live.
Are we on the same line here?
Now, given that the extinction rate for the past while has claimed a
substantial number of species, and, by your own statement, that
extinction is the fuel for evolution, where are the NEW species
resutling from the extinctions? If you think mould on the cheese is a new
species, you know less about the theory than I.
-Jim (non-spam, remove the "x" in my address)
Thomas Scharle
In article <5po9bn$n5e$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net>, Elmer Bataitis <"nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com> writes:
|> Jim Alexander wrote:
|> > If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
|> > evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
|> > the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas. Since that atmosphere is a
|> > considerably harsher one than today's, I find it odd that the same life=
|>
|> > forms can not be re-created by the theoretical lightning and an
|> > atmosphere less toxic to life than ammonia.
|> > So if life forms can't be re-created in the laboratory, the theory that=
|>
|> > they were created this way is sheer speculation without any solid
|> > evidence and not to be taken seriously.
|>
|> Well, not so much that, but rather, taken with a grain of salt.
[...rest deleted...]
Of course, there is something other than "sheer speculation"
and "re-created in the laboratory."
Most people seem to take seriously the ideas that the planets
orbit the sun, that earthquakes have natural causes, and that people
first arrived in the Americas from Asia; yet none of these can be
reproduced in the laboratory.
But that should not obscure the "grain of salt" with respect to
thinking about the first appearance of life on earth. But the lack
of a persuasive explanation for the appearance of life on earth does
not have a devastating impact on the well-established facts of its
subsequent evolution.
Newtonian mechanics didn't find itself in trouble because it
didn't afford a good explanation for the origin of the solar system.
The periodic table of Mendeleev didn't provide an explantion for the
origin of the chemical elements, but that was no profound difficulty.
It is an interesting problem, how life first appeared on earth.
But, even if it were established that there is no possible natural
explanation for its first appearance, if it were accepted that life
had to be an event of Divine intervention, that wouldn't tell us that
life hasn't changed since then, that old species have gone extinct
and new ones have appeared.
Meanwhile, in the best tradition of science, people do propose
scientific explanations and propose tests of those explanations. You
know, the old Baconian ideal of "formulate a theory, deduce the
consequences of that theory, and test the consequences". If anyone
wanted to kill science, one effective way would be to cut off the
"formulate a theory" part if the consequences were not immediately
observed. Speculation is a vital part of science.
Larry Kurka
Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<5pofil$2...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>...
>
> In a previous article, rob...@dial.pipex.com (Rob) says:
>
> >ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
> >
> >The number of existing life forms isn't declining. Check out your
> >local maternity ward. Ever done any home brewing? And there's that
> >cheese at the back of the refrigerator that's gone all furry....
>
> So, you're saying that NEW species are evolving in someone's maternity
> ward? What do they look like? How have they evolved from the present
> human species? Longer arms? More body hair? Lower IQ?
> These are new species we're talking about here, right?
>
Sure are. Maybe if you had been paying attention to the news instead of
dreaming up ways to seem witless ... I mean witty ... you would have seen
the stories. Lizards.
> >As for species, if they didn't go extinct then evolution as we know it
> >couldn't have happened (at least not to give us the current state of
> >affairs).
>
> Over time, there has been, supposedly, new species to replace the extinct
> ones. Some have been, supposedly, mutated to survive an environmental
> change that would make it impossible for the current species to live.
> Are we on the same line here?
Yeah. Something caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, those that didn't
evolve into the many species of birds, that is. Right after that there was
a great deal of mammal speciation. Pretty well shown by the fossil record.
Insects are evolving new species so fast that it's hard to keep up.
> Now, given that the extinction rate for the past while has claimed a
> substantial number of species, and, by your own statement, that
> extinction is the fuel for evolution, where are the NEW species
> resutling from the extinctions? If you think mould on the cheese is a new
> species, you know less about the theory than I.
> -Jim (non-spam, remove the "x" in my address)
>
Jim, perhaps a little actual study of real science would be helpful. When
you get your science from "creation science", the conclusions are suspect
at best.
Paul Yost
Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote in article
<5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>...
>
> Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
> posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
> life forms in a lab.
> Can anyone help me?
A ha, ha ha, a ha ha hah. (Hand slowly cranking laugh wheel).
Here is an experiment for you. Find a planet barren of life that has a
surface predominantly covered by liquid dihydrogen oxide. It is possible
your experiment will go faster if the world you find is geologically
active. Now just sit back and observe a few hundred million years. There
is good evidence to support that life arose on our own world fairly early
in its history, about two billion years ago. (Roughly two and a half
billion years after it was formed). Life may have arisen several times on
the planet.
> I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
> scientific method.
> Oh! And one more thing.
> Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
> forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
> and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
> (non-spam; remove "x" before address)
There have been five mass extinctions, we are in the midst of a sixth.
After each, there is abundant evidence of new species. If a new species
bit you on the foot today, we would be hard pressed to prove whether or not
that species was truly new or simply undocumented. We have catalogued
between 5% and 50% of all the species there are, we can't even accurately
project our ignorance.
The last mass extinction occurred about 65 million years ago, and was not
precipitated by the activities of homo sapiens.
Thomas Swanson
In article <5pofil$2...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> xad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) writes:
>
>Over time, there has been, supposedly, new species to replace the extinct
>ones. Some have been, supposedly, mutated to survive an environmental
>change that would make it impossible for the current species to live.
>Are we on the same line here?
>substantial number of species, and, by your own statement, that
>extinction is the fuel for evolution, where are the NEW species
>resutling from the extinctions? If you think mould on the cheese is a new
>species, you know less about the theory than I.
Try reading _The Beak of the Finch_ by Jonathan Weiner.
____________________________________________________________
Tom Swanson | "I have a cunning plan that cannot fail"
TRIUMF | S Baldrick
><DARWIN> "Your grasp of science lacks opposable thumbs."
L L B Waggoner
karl
In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
<mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
>
> Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote in article
> <5pmurl$2...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>...
> >
> > In a previous article, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) says:
> >
> > >In talk.origins, on thread _life still evolving?_, ad...@pgfn.bc.ca
> > >(Jim Alexander) wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
> > >>posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
> > >>life forms in a lab.
> > >
> > >Well, since evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life
> > >forms, since no scientists has said they can do this in the lab, and
> > >since scientists are not saying that they know exactly how life
> > >originated this is not surprising. Now can you tell us what scientists
> > >do say is the fact of evolution?
> > >
> > >>Can anyone help me?
> > >
> > >Sure, your best bet is to take a whole bunch of biology courses at the
> > >university level. Taking one would be a good start.
> > >
> > OK. So you created new life forms in your biology class?
> > Is that what you're saying? Can you describe the species you created and
> > how long it lived? Has it now "evolved" into a cell that has learned to
> > cell divide before it dies? What started the cell division process in
> > this life form you created in you r biology class?
> > If you can answer any of these questions without referring me to some
> > other source for these facts, I'll know you were't asleep when the prof
> > covered this part.
> > If you can't even answer them yourself without referring me to the same
> > biology class, then I don't think I'll be any further ahead in my search
> > for this evidence than you apparently are.
> > If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
> > evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
> > the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas. Since that atmosphere is a
> > considerably harsher one than today's, I find it odd that the same life
> > forms can not be re-created by the theoretical lightning and an
> > atmosphere less toxic to life than ammonia.
> > So if life forms can't be re-created in the laboratory, the theory that
> > they were created this way is sheer speculation without any solid
> > evidence and not to be taken seriously.
> >
> > >>I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following
> the
> > >>scientific method.
> > >>Oh! And one more thing.
> > >>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of
> life
> > >>forms,
> > >
> > >Since this is different than any scientific theory of evolution I am
> > >aware of can you tell me where you read this? What I have heard is
> > >that evolution predicts fairly continual change in "life forms". We do
> > >see this, so I don't know what the problem is.
> >
> > Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
> > that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
>
> > number o years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
> > number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
>
> > a plethora; a small number is something else.
> > I don't see what the problem is either.
> >
> > > >>why is the number of
> > existing life forms and species declining >
> > >Rather dramatic change in the environment. We have plenty of evidence
> > >that this has happened several times in the last couple of hundred
> > >million years.
> > >
> > Yes. And you supposedly have dramatic evidence of new species replacing
> > the ones that died out as a result of an environmental change.
> > So, where's the new ones? Environmental change and loss of species is
> > what is supposed to fuel the genetic mutations that result in new
> species.
> >
> >
> > >>and no
> > documented evidence on new ones replacing them? >
> > >Are you unaware of the evidence of new species, have you ignored it,
> > >or are you telling a falsehood?
> > >
> > Telling a falsehood? Do you mean saying something without facts to back
> > it up, or deliberately altering the truth?
> > In the first case, yes, I'm saying something without any facts to back it
>
> > up, because I don't have any. If you do, now's your chance.
> > And I don't mean a referral to a biology course or some news group. Just
> > tell me what the facts are of creation of new life cells in a laboratory
> > environment and what species in particular are proven to be a new
> > species. And not just a viral change of skin surface. A new life form.
> > In the second case, there is nothing to distort or falsify, since there
> > is no evidence of either of the creation of new life in a tube or a
> > documented new species.
> >
> >
--
+++++++++++++
see ya,
karl
+++++++++++++
Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
1st Timothy 6:20
Huw
Jim Alexander wrote:
>
> Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
> posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
> life forms in a lab.
> I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
> scientific method.
Get a woman, go to a lab, and shag. I don't know if you need a
scientific
method, but I know you need to avoid the rhythm method. Just wait nine
months, et voila "the creation of life form(s) in a lab".
(ask a silly question...)
> Oh! And one more thing.
> Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
> forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
> and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
The theory of evolution does not call 'for an ever emerging plethora of
life
forms'. If the number of existing life forms and species is declining,
and
continues to do so, eventually everything will go extinct. That is the
result
of mans irresponsible action in the environment, it has nothing to do
with
any theory of evolution.
If you creationists want to debate evolution it may be a good idea to
read a text book on it, or even the original, because then you might
ask an informed question worth replying to seriously, so there's my
answer: No, I won't pardon your ignorance about the 'facts of evolution'
when it is patentely obvious you are regurgitating misinformed
creationist propaganda. Do some real studying and perhaps you won't make
such a fool of yourself in future by asking flippant and erroneous
questions.
- Huw
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>,
Jim Alexander <xad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote:
>Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
>posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
>life forms in a lab.
Your ignorance of the facts of evolution are all too clear, and
unpardonable.
>Can anyone help me?
I know the address of a good psychiatrist :)
OTOH, read widely on the subject. For a quick introduction,
go to http://www.talkorigins.org/
>I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
>scientific method.
How about recreating the origin of the universe, or the origin of
the solar system, or the origin of mountains while you're at it?
>Oh! And one more thing.
>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
>forms,
No it doesn't. Evolution is change in populations of species.
They become extinct, sometimes en mass, as well as succeed.
>why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
As your premise is incorrect, your questions are meaningless.
Martin Smith
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-07079...@max6-06.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>
>> As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
>
>great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
.... !!!!!
Martin Smith
If there was a global flood 4000 years ago:
1. We would observe very little allelic diversity in any species. Why
then do we observe high levels of diversity in most species?
2. We would observe a high level of recessive disorder in each species.
Why then do we generally observe very low levels of recessive disorder?
3. We would observe a distinct genetic delineation of each of your
created 'kinds', because (you say) there was a representative of
each 'kind' aboard the ark. Why is there no such delineation?
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <5pn0t7$3...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>,
Jim Alexander <ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> wrote:
>In a previous article, att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) says:
>>In <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander)
>>writes:
>>>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of
>>life
>>>forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
>>>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
>>===>Where in the world did you get that ridiculous idea that
>> "evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life forms"?
>> Libertarius
>I got it from a guy named Darwin.
>He says that new species keep emerging out of the old. So, if life
>started with one cell and ended up with the number of life forms we have
>today, Plus all the ones that have disppeared over time, then, a plethora
>of life forms have emerged as a result of evolution.
So you're saying there has been a lot of life on Earth? And, er, this
refutes the theory of evolution? Interesting.
>Do the math;
>Take the number of species on earth, <10,000,000> add to this the
>number of species that have disappeared form the face of the earth,
> <1,000,000,000> then divide this by the number of years since the
>first life form appeared <3,500,000,000>. That number ....
(10,000,000 + 1,000,000,000)/3,500,000,000 = 0.29.
What numbers would you like to use?
>is the number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large
>number, its a plethora; a small number is something else.
Define 'large number' and 'small number', then tell us what 'something
else' is.
>How many new life forms or new species per year does that get us?
0.29. So what?
>So, how many new life forms, or even new species have there been
>appearing in the last few thousand years?
We don't know. We have probably catalogued the order of 10% of all
species. However, we are probably undergoing a global mass extinction
of species.
>Oh, and since the mutant species results from a stressor that kills the
>current life form but not the mutant,
If this is meant to describe speciation, it gets 0 out of 10. Please
define what you mean by 'mutant'.
>then I could apply that same theory to the specific case of apes
>and man.
Don't, your theory is garbage; garbage in, garbage out.
<scroll down>
Oh dear, you did!
<scroll up>
<garbage deleted>
Martin Smith
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
> <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> =
> > As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
> =
> great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
Ohhh nooooo.... the Irony o' meter overload just took out my city's
power grid.
=
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsel=
y =
> called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
=
Rob
ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>So, you're saying that NEW species are evolving in someone's maternity
>ward? What do they look like? How have they evolved from the present
>human species? Longer arms? More body hair? Lower IQ?
>These are new species we're talking about here, right?
It's worth noting here that in your original post you refer to the
decline in the number of existing life forms and species. My point is
that the number of existing life forms is not in decline.
Speciation can be a tricky business to understand. Taking your
original post at face value, I'll assume you genuinely seek
understanding. Observing evolution as an ongoing process, we can't
point to a newly hatched (or born or whatever) organism and say,
"That's a new species." This is because the said organism will
resemble its parent(s) to the extent that it can be said to be of the
same species. But individuals within any given species may differ
considerably from each other. When two or more populations within a
species become isolated for whatever reason, they may well find on
meeting each other again (after many generations) that they have
become too diverse to interbreed. Speciation has occurred. Please
note that we cannot pinpoint the event of speciation; we can only say
that it _has_ occurred at sometime between point A and point B, and
then only because the intermediates between the differing individuals
are all dead.
>Over time, there has been, supposedly, new species to replace the extinct
>ones.
Yes, but don't forget that new species arise _from_ existing ones. We
see distinct species in the world today because of the absence of
(extinct) intermediates. If the intermediates weren't extinct then
the differences between species would be less apparent. It's true
that when a species goes extinct it may well leave ecological
breathing space to permit the proliferation of a previously less
successful species, but don't get confused into thinking that new
species arise from thin air to replace existing ones. That only
happens in fairy stories.
> Some have been, supposedly, mutated to survive an environmental
>change that would make it impossible for the current species to live.
Organisms that cannot survive an environmental change will, of course,
die when that change takes place. Those that can survive will
survive. Their survival may indeed be due to mutation. It is not
hard to imagine a scenario where some members of a species die, while
others (possessing an advantageous mutation) live.
>Are we on the same line here?
I hope so.
>Now, given that the extinction rate for the past while has claimed a
>substantial number of species,
...agreed...
> and, by your own statement, that
>extinction is the fuel for evolution,
I didn't say that. I said that without extinction we would not have
the wide range of _distinct_ species we have now. If I didn't make
that clear enough in my last post, then I hope the earlier paragraphs
of this post will help.
> where are the NEW species
>resutling from the extinctions?
As I hope I've now explained, new species don't arise (directly) from
extinctions (although after an extinction event we may well be able to
regard two _existing_ populations as distinct species, when we weren't
so sure before the intermediates died out).
> If you think mould on the cheese is a new
>species, you know less about the theory than I.
But that's the whole point, Jim. You can't watch new species appear,
but you can see afterwards that they have appeared. The cheese fur
contains millions of individual organisms, with lots of lovely scope
for mutation. With sufficient time and a bit of luck, one of those
mutations just might confer a significant advantage on the chap
possessing it. He and his offspring then get to consume more of the
cheese than their disadvantaged peers, and we are off on the road
toward speciation.
"It is the final proof of God's omnipotence
that he need not exist in order to save us."
(Peter de Vries)
Doug Quarnstrom
Jim Alexander (ad...@pgfn.bc.ca) wrote:
: I got it from a guy named Darwin.
My guess is that you never read a word of Darwin in your life.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
karl (ks...@fast.net) wrote:
: In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
: <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
: > As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
: great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
His questions are all rhetorical.
This is obvious to anyone capable of reding.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
Jim Alexander (ad...@pgfn.bc.ca) wrote:
: OK. So you created new life forms in your biology class?
No, that is not the claim being made. The claim being made is
that even ONE course would alter your profound and abiding ignorance
a great deal. This assertion presumes, of course, that you are not
the congenital idiot your public posts make you seem.
: If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
: evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
: the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas.
Is there nobody left in the world with ANY shame at all?
doug
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) says:
>
>>In <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander)
>>writes:
>
>>>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of
>>life
>>>forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
>>>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
>>>
>>===>Where in the world did you get that ridiculous idea that
>> "evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life forms"?
>>
>> Libertarius
>>
>I got it from a guy named Darwin.
>He says that new species keep emerging out of the old.
But you write as though this mean an ever increasing number of
existent species. If you merely meant continual change, then there is
not problem. The evidence is all around you.
[snip]
>Oh, and since the mutant species results from a stressor that kills the
>current life form but not the mutant, then I could apply that same theory
>to the specific case of apes and man.
Where did you get this? Not from Darwin. The term "mutant species" has
no meaning. And the emergence of a new species does not mean the old
one disappears.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
[snip]
>
>Over time, there has been, supposedly, new species to replace the extinct
>ones. Some have been, supposedly, mutated to survive an environmental
>change that would make it impossible for the current species to live.
>Are we on the same line here?
No. First, genes mutate, organisms live, populations evolve. Second,
there is no need for the "old" species to disappear when a new one
emerges. As I have suggested to you, you should learn what biology
says before you comment on it.
>Now, given that the extinction rate for the past while has claimed a
>substantial number of species, and, by your own statement, that
>extinction is the fuel for evolution, where are the NEW species
>resutling from the extinctions? If you think mould on the cheese is a new
>species, you know less about the theory than I.
There are probably new species all around. Now, I don't know who told
you that extinctions fuel evolution, but that sounds misleading.
"Catastrophes" that open up ecological niches certainly give room for
speciation. But evolution happens all of the time.
Matt Silberstein
In talk.origins ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>
>In a previous article, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt Silberstein) says:
>
>>In talk.origins, on thread _life still evolving?_, ad...@pgfn.bc.ca
>>(Jim Alexander) wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Pardon my ignorance about the facts of evolution, but I can't find any
>>>posting here that would describe an experiment showing the creation of
>>>life forms in a lab.
>>
>>Well, since evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life
>>forms, since no scientists has said they can do this in the lab, and
>>since scientists are not saying that they know exactly how life
>>originated this is not surprising. Now can you tell us what scientists
>>do say is the fact of evolution?
>>
>>>Can anyone help me?
>>
>>Sure, your best bet is to take a whole bunch of biology courses at the
>>university level. Taking one would be a good start.
>>
>OK. So you created new life forms in your biology class?
>Is that what you're saying? Can you describe the species you created and
>how long it lived? Has it now "evolved" into a cell that has learned to
>cell divide before it dies? What started the cell division process in
>this life form you created in you r biology class?
Like I said, you should take a course. Then you could make claims
about what biology actually says instead of presenting these strawman
arguments.
I want to make my response quite clear. You are asking people to
defend a statement that biology does not make. Since you are starting
from a quite false premise, there is no reason to continue.
>If you can answer any of these questions without referring me to some
>other source for these facts, I'll know you were't asleep when the prof
>covered this part.
The issue was not what I know, but what you know. You were the one who
had some questions. Now why should it matter whether I refer you to
something outside the newsgroup. Do you somehow expect all of science
to be presented to you in quick posts? The reason FAQ abound on the
Internet is to answer frequently asked questions. The reason people
publish articles in peer-reviews publications is so you can have some
confidence that the work has been checked.
>If you can't even answer them yourself without referring me to the same
>biology class, then I don't think I'll be any further ahead in my search
>for this evidence than you apparently are.
Wow! That sure makes sense. You come here with some questions that
show you either know very little about biology or you have an agenda.
When I suggest you learn more about the subject, you see that as a
comment on how little I know.
>If new life forms have not been created in the lab, then there is no
>evidence to back up the theory that life began by a lightneing bolt in
>the earth's then atmosphere of NH3 gas. Since that atmosphere is a
>considerably harsher one than today's, I find it odd that the same life
>forms can not be re-created by the theoretical lightning and an
>atmosphere less toxic to life than ammonia.
First, do you think that "toxic" is somehow an absolute rather than
relative measure? An atmosphere contains what it contains. It may be
"toxic" to some compounds, and helpful to others.
Second, do you have any comments on what is found when you jolt some
"primordial" atmosphere?
Third, are you aware that there are other abiogenesis theories?
Forth, what part of "abiogenesis is not evolution" do you have a
problem with?
>So if life forms can't be re-created in the laboratory, the theory that
>they were created this way is sheer speculation without any solid
>evidence and not to be taken seriously.
>
I was wrong, you should start with a logic course. You can work your
way to science. That life has not yet been created in a lab only means
that it has not. It does not comment on the evidence in support of any
theory, it does not comment on the value of any theory.
>>>I need enough information so I can recreate it for myself, following the
>>>scientific method.
>>>Oh! And one more thing.
>>>Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
>>>forms,
>>
>>Since this is different than any scientific theory of evolution I am
>>aware of can you tell me where you read this? What I have heard is
>>that evolution predicts fairly continual change in "life forms". We do
>>see this, so I don't know what the problem is.
>
>Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
>that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
>number o years since the first life form appeared. That number is the
>number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
>a plethora; a small number is something else.
>I don't see what the problem is either.
>
Ok, lets take this slow. Where does the "ever-emergin" come from? And
how does it relate to the theory? Here is a hint, the change in the
variety of life is an observation, the theory was developed to explain
those observations.
>> >>why is the number of
>existing life forms and species declining >
>>Rather dramatic change in the environment. We have plenty of evidence
>>that this has happened several times in the last couple of hundred
>>million years.
>>
>Yes. And you supposedly have dramatic evidence of new species replacing
>the ones that died out as a result of an environmental change.
AAMOF, we do.
>So, where's the new ones? Environmental change and loss of species is
>what is supposed to fuel the genetic mutations that result in new species.
I am going to do what you have already rejected and send you to the
FAQ. You should check out either
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html or
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html This question has been
asked and answered many times before. New species have been observed.
>>>and no
>documented evidence on new ones replacing them? >
>>Are you unaware of the evidence of new species, have you ignored it,
>>or are you telling a falsehood?
>>
>Telling a falsehood? Do you mean saying something without facts to back
>it up, or deliberately altering the truth?
>In the first case, yes, I'm saying something without any facts to back it
>up, because I don't have any. If you do, now's your chance.
So you did lie. In a sense that is more important than you question.
You deliberately made a claim that you did not have information to
back up. Most people would consider that an immoral act. Do you
justify it because you cause is right?
However, to answer you question I will quote a piece from the FAQ. If
you want more information do the research.
[included from talk.origns speciation FAQ
(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) ]
In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis
acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were
allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four
pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as
test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long
Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations,
P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on
these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both
postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation,
they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared.
The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each
group of crosses.
WH X WH - 75%
P1 X P1 - 95%
P2 X P2 - 80%
P1 X P2 - 77%
WH X P1 - 0%
WH X P2 - 0%
They also found statistically significant premating isolation between
the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole
population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field
populations.
[end included text]
>And I don't mean a referral to a biology course or some news group. Just
>tell me what the facts are of creation of new life cells in a laboratory
>environment and what species in particular are proven to be a new
>species.
Why are you still asking about creation of life in a laboratory? Have
you a reference to some biologist claim they had done it? Abiogenesis
is not evolution and neither is speciation.
>And not just a viral change of skin surface. A new life form.
Ah! You have private definitions of the words. And you want science to
conform to your definitions. Sorry, but that is not the way it works.
If you ask a scientist a question about speciation, they are going to
answer with their meaning. If you have a different question, then ask
that one.
>In the second case, there is nothing to distort or falsify, since there
>is no evidence of either of the creation of new life in a tube or a
>documented new species.
>
Once again, you proudly make a claim from ignorance. Have you read the
FAQs on this? Have you looked up the references? How do you know there
is no "documented new species"? Try to remember that your lack of
knowledge is not a constraint on science.
Matt Silberstein
=============================================
Verbing weirds language - W. W.
Geoff Sheffield
Jim Alexander wrote:
>
> In a previous article, att...@ix.netcom.com (Libertarius) says:
>
> >In <5pm0um$c...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca> ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander)
> >writes:
>
> >life
> >>and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
> >>
> > "evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life forms"?
> >
> > Libertarius
> >
> I got it from a guy named Darwin.
> started with one cell and ended up with the number of life forms we have
> today, Plus all the ones that have disppeared over time, then, a plethora
> of life forms have emerged as a result of evolution.
> Take the number of species on earth, add to this the number of species
> that have disappeared form the face of the earth, then divide this by the
> number of new life forms appearing every year. If its a large number, its
> a plethora; a small number is something else.
> appearing in the last few thousand years?
> current life form but not the mutant, then I could apply that same theory
> escape the need for a house to protect him from the environment. Next, he
> changes his body around a bit so he doesn't need the meat we have now,
> and lives healthier.
> It doesn't take a mind of much greater IQ than an ape to see which
> species will outlive the other.
> I mean, NO ape would be dumb enough to spend the rest of his life chained
> up to a job so he can pay for his house, then retire in bad health and
> die before he enjoys his freedom for very long.
> Yes, my arms are getting longer, my IQ lower and my body hair is getting
> profuse. Hey! It sure beats the rat-race!
> -Jim
The scientists on talk.origins seem to enjoy their jobs much more than
you
enjoy yours. Doesn't that just burn you up?
GS
Don Cates
Elmer Bataitis <"nyli...@frontiernet.net/nylicence"@aol.com> wrote:
>karl wrote:
>> =
>> In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
>> <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>> =
>> > As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
>> =
>> great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
>Ohhh nooooo.... the Irony o' meter overload just took out my city's
>power grid.
> =
Well, that's what you get for buying one of those new super-duper Irony
o' meters; Mark MMLVII or whatever they're up to now. It's futile to try
and get one to survive a Karl hit, it still goes, but now it takes
something else with it. I still use the old Mark I (they're real cheap
now). I have closet full. It works fine on normal posts and allows a
comparative irony content measurement and the little explosion on a Karl
post hit just affects the meter. That provides enough distraction to
protect my internal wet-ware irony detector and lets the overload dump
into the humor detector (which is immune to overload). Then I just drop
the old meter in the recycle bin and hook up a new one.
-------------- Don Cates --------
"Conversation would be vastly improved by the constant
use of four simple words: I do not know." - Andre Maurois
The best thing about mistakes is the joy they bring others.
karl
In article <5pqf0p$h...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
(Mr. M.J. Smith) wrote:
> In article <ksjj-07079...@max6-06.phl.fast.net>,
> karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> >In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
> ><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
> >
> >great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
>
> .... !!!!!
>
> Martin Smith
>
>
>
> If there was a global flood 4000 years ago:
>
> 1. We would observe very little allelic diversity in any species. Why
> then do we observe high levels of diversity in most species?
>
> 2. We would observe a high level of recessive disorder in each species.
> Why then do we generally observe very low levels of recessive disorder?
>
> 3. We would observe a distinct genetic delineation of each of your
> created 'kinds', because (you say) there was a representative of
> each 'kind' aboard the ark. Why is there no such delineation?
Do you have John Woodmorappes book? if so read it.
karl
In article <33C0BC...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com>, Huw
<co...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> If you creationists want to debate evolution it may be a good idea to
> read a text book on it, or even the original, because then you might
> ask an informed question worth replying to seriously, so there's my
> answer: No, I won't pardon your ignorance about the 'facts of evolution'
> when it is patentely obvious you are regurgitating misinformed
> creationist propaganda. Do some real studying and perhaps you won't make
> such a fool of yourself in future by asking flippant and erroneous
> questions.
With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then
perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
>
> - Huw
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <33C0BC...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com>, Huw
> <co...@cpd.ntc.nokia.com> wrote:
> =
> > If you creationists want to debate evolution it may be a good idea to=
> > read a text book on it, or even the original, because then you might
> > ask an informed question worth replying to seriously, so there's my
> > answer: No, I won't pardon your ignorance about the 'facts of evoluti=
on'
> > when it is patentely obvious you are regurgitating misinformed
> > creationist propaganda. Do some real studying and perhaps you won't m=
ake
> > such a fool of yourself in future by asking flippant and erroneous
> > questions.
> =
> With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then=
> perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
I have, Karl. Can you please explain why Genesis 1:11 does not imply
death before the fall?
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsel=
y =
> called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
> =
> 1st Timothy 6:20
EX 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."
The last time I looked, this was still one of the Ten Commandments. =
Since there is *NO* paranthetical in 1 Tim 6:20, nor any *mention* of
evolution in the bible, why do you feel that *this* commandment doesn't
apply to you? =
Proverbs 12:
17 He *that* speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false
witness deceit.
20 Deceit *is* in the heart of them that imagine evil: but to the
counsellors of peace *is* joy. =
=
19 The lip of truth shall be established for ever: but a lying tongue
*is* but for a moment.
=
22 Lying lips *are* abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly
*are* his delight. =
Has being saved absolved you from obedience of the Ten Commandments?
******************************************************************
Elmer Bataitis
karl wrote:
> =
> In article <5pqf0p$h...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
> (Mr. M.J. Smith) wrote:
> =
> > In article <ksjj-07079...@max6-06.phl.fast.net>,
> > karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painte=
r"
> > ><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
> > >
> > >great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
> >
> > .... !!!!!
> >
> > Martin Smith
> >
> >
> >
> > If there was a global flood 4000 years ago:
> >
> > 1. We would observe very little allelic diversity in any species. Why=
> > then do we observe high levels of diversity in most species?
> >
> > 2. We would observe a high level of recessive disorder in each specie=
s.
> > Why then do we generally observe very low levels of recessive disorde=
r?
> >
> > 3. We would observe a distinct genetic delineation of each of your
> > created 'kinds', because (you say) there was a representative of
> > each 'kind' aboard the ark. Why is there no such delineation?
> =
> Do you have John Woodmorappes book? if so read it.
Since you have continually reposted large chunks of this book and what
you have posted of it has been repeatedly refuted, what would we learn?
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsel=
y =
> called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
Mr. M.J. Smith
In article <ksjj-07079...@max3-13.phl.fast.net>,
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
>Do you have John Woodmorappes book? if so read it.
Isn't he the guy who doesn't know the difference between the mean
and the median? The same guy who doesn't know the difference between
mutation and recombination?
Martin Smith
PS
If there was a global flood 4000 years ago:
1. We would observe very little allelic diversity in any species. Why
then do we observe high levels of diversity in most species?
2. We would observe a high level of recessive disorder in each species.
Why then do we generally observe very low levels of recessive disorder?
Rob
ks...@fast.net (karl) wrote:
>With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then
>perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
I have yet to find a creationist book which does not contain
transparent falsehoods intended to influence the uneducated.
Recommend one and I will read it.
Tom Canham
Karl, karl, karl.
Yet again, you respond with Woodmorappe. Even after we've looked at it,
dissected it, and shredded it.
Once again, I posit the question. If your beliefs in creation are
scientific in ANY WAY, they must (according to the nature of scientific
debate) be falsifiable. Can you give us ONE fact or piece of evidence that
would make you say: "Yup, you're right. I guess I was misled by this God
thing all along!" ???
I'm sure you will come up with the same questions: create a cell (nobody
claims to be able to), show evidence of speciation (we have, you have
ignored it), show how the Ark COULDN'T have worked (we have, you ignored
it), explain the "Woodpecker's Cushion" of cartilage (we have, you ignored
it).
The theories we've presented have been logical and consistent. While some
of "us" (the evolutionists, as you call us) have been petty and immature
and have responded with little but strawmen and ad hominem attacks, for the
most part, EVERY TIME YOU'VE ASKED A QUESTION CHALLENGING EVOLUTION OR
CURRENT COSMOLOGY, WE'VE GIVEN YOU A HOST OF ANSWERS.
Yet you still bring up books which have been discredited and evidence which
nobody but you has access to. You "explain, rather than describe"*. You
simply ignore evidence which is presented to every time you ask for it.
How can you show us that your theory is falsifiable? You haven't yet
acknowledged any contradictory evidence. Every piece of contradictory
evidence YOU'VE presented has been thoroughly discussed by this group.
In retrospect, it's no wonder that many of us are resorting to name calling
when it comes to you; you haven't followed ANY of the rules of logical
debate or scientific inquiry (yet you continue to attack our discussions
based upon your a priori beliefs).
Where's the beef, Karl?
-- ttc
*ie, you have an a priori assumption -- that God created everything, and
then you attempt to massage the data to hide any inconsistencies. The
"appropriate" tack would be to give a full "scientific" theory, using known
(and documented) physical laws (gravitation, thermodynamics, etc.) to
describe all of the events in the Bible. But you can't, which is why you
are running "damage control" rather than actually giving us a working
theory. IMO.
karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote in article
<ksjj-07079...@max3-13.phl.fast.net>...
> In article <5pqf0p$h...@mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, mjs...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk
> (Mr. M.J. Smith) wrote:
>
> > In article <ksjj-07079...@max6-06.phl.fast.net>,
> > karl <ks...@fast.net> wrote:
> > >In article <01bc89d7$97653ea0$23ce77cc@mpainter>, "Michael D. Painter"
> > ><mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> As I said, this denotes stupidity on your part, not ignorance.
> > >
> > >great comeback....BTW I noticed you are dodging his questions.
> >
> > .... !!!!!
> >
> > Martin Smith
> >
> >
> >
> > If there was a global flood 4000 years ago:
> >
> > 1. We would observe very little allelic diversity in any species. Why
> > then do we observe high levels of diversity in most species?
> >
> > 2. We would observe a high level of recessive disorder in each species.
> > Why then do we generally observe very low levels of recessive disorder?
> >
> > 3. We would observe a distinct genetic delineation of each of your
> > created 'kinds', because (you say) there was a representative of
> > each 'kind' aboard the ark. Why is there no such delineation?
>
>
> Do you have John Woodmorappes book? if so read it.
>
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
> karl
> +++++++++++++
> Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care.
> Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely
called knowledge,.....(such as the theory of evolution)
>
> 1st Timothy 6:20
>
>
Yah well whatever, Timothy was a dink. ;)
Thomas Scharle
In article <ksjj-07079...@max3-13.phl.fast.net>, ks...@fast.net (karl) writes:
...
|> With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then
|> perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
Ronald L. Numbers (known in this group as the author of "The
Creationists", Knopf, 1992) has published ten volumes of writings
of creationists, in the series "Creationism in Twentieth-Century
America", Garland Publications. This series includes such titles
as "Selected Works of George McCready Price", "Antievolution
Pamphlets of Harry Rimmer", "Creation and Evolution in the Early
American Scientific Affiliation".
The list of "creationist" publications which many of the
participants in talk.origins is quite long. Many of us have read
recent publications such as those of Behe, Johnson, Moreland and
Ross, just to mention some relatively recent ones. Many have
also read older ones.
But what is the point of getting into a contest of how many
books someone has read?
There are plenty of people who are lurking, not directly
participating in the discussion, and I would suggest that if
writer XYZ has something of interest to say, post it, so that
all can see.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Mark Isaak
In article <33C29F...@interpath.com>,
Ken Denny <kde...@interpath.com> wrote:
>karl wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then
>> perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
>
Enuma Elish. Popol Vuh. Kumulipo. Several others. I bet Karl hasn't
read any of them.
--
Mark Isaak at...@best.com http://www.best.com/~atta
"To undeceive men is to offend them." - Queen Christina of Sweden
Ken Denny
karl wrote:
>
> With all due respect, if you evolutionist want to debate creation, then
> perhaps YOU should read a book on it.
I've read Genesis. Is there another?
> --
> +++++++++++++
> see ya,
Don't wanna be ya
> karl
> +++++++++++++
Ken
Ken Livingston
ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
> Since the theory of evolution calls for an ever-emerging plethora of life
> forms, why is the number of existing life forms and species declining
> and no documented evidence on new ones replacing them?
Well, lemme see....
How many species are there? 10 million?
The earth has been around for how long? 4.5 billion years?
On average, this yields a new species every 450 million years or so.
But okay, assuming that the first protozoa emerged about 2 billion years ago,
this still yields just one new species every 200 million years - on average.
We know that the evolution of new species is not uniform over time, of
course, but no matter how you slice it, your entire lifespan or mine is
nothing compared to the evolutionary timescale.
Cheers,
Ken
Ken Livingston
ken...@pcug.org.au
Ken Livingston
[snip]
> Well, I just did this. Taking 10,000,000 species existing today (from E.
> O. Wilson's "The Diversity of Life") and mulipying by the oft quoted
> paleontological dictum that 98% of life no longer exists, and using 3.5
> Bya for the appearance first life, I get .143 new species generated per
> year. I think that this seems to be lower bound. =
What is the evidence for the dictum that 98% of life (species?) no longer
exists? I'm not doubting it - just curious.
Regards,
Ken
--
Ken Livingston
ken...@pcug.org.au
Jim Alexander
In a previous article, ken...@pcug.org.au (Ken Livingston) says:
>ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
>
Ken Livingstone says:
>
>But okay, assuming that the first protozoa emerged about 2 billion years ago,
>this still yields just one new species every 200 million years - on average.
>
>We know that the evolution of new species is not uniform over time, of
>course, but no matter how you slice it, your entire lifespan or mine is
>nothing compared to the evolutionary timescale.
>
With environmental changes happening considerably sooner than the
necessary reaction time for the mutant to survive the doomed species,
evolution could not be responsible for survival of any species. It's just
too slow.
In Darwin's theory, survival of the species depends on mutant genetic
information being formed in the species that would be killed off by an
environmental change. At the rate mutation happens, in order for the mutant
information to be successfully passed on to the new species, it would
also have to lead the environmental change and it would have to be passed
on by mating successfully before it died. If the mutant information is
created so rarely, then the chances are not good that the mutant
information would be available again for a considerable time following
an unsuccessful mating. ie, the new information would die with the host.
But, believe what you want!
-Jim
Stephen F. Schaffner
In article <01bc8cae$b10f4f60$4fc9...@edumedia.trendline.co.il>,
EduMedia <edum...@trendline.co.il> wrote:
>1b) It is important to note that in this debate all should stop trying to
>prove their side from the consequences of either side. In other words it is
>true that if man evolved from an ape through random mutations and natural
>selection that we are all here without any purpouse and nothing really
>makes any eternal difernece.
Your premise and conclusion appear to be unrelated to each other. How
do mutation and NS have any bearing on whether we're here for a purpose?
>But that can't prove or disprove a theory.
Certainly true.
>What it can say is that the science of origins has more importance than
>other scinces because of the resulting world outlook.
>
>Would everybody agree to the above before we move on?
Certainly not.
Steve Schaffner ssc...@slac.stanford.edu
SLAC and I have a deal: they don't || Immediate assurance is an excellent sign
pay me, and I don't speak for them. || of probable lack of insight into the
|| topic. Josiah Royce
Richard Keatinge
In article <5q9krc$8...@frodo.pgfn.bc.ca>, Jim Alexander
<ad...@pgfn.bc.ca> writes
>With environmental changes happening considerably sooner than the
>necessary reaction time for the mutant to survive the doomed species,
>evolution could not be responsible for survival of any species. It's just
>too slow.
>In Darwin's theory, survival of the species depends on mutant genetic
>information being formed in the species that would be killed off by an
>environmental change. At the rate mutation happens, in order for the mutant
>information to be successfully passed on to the new species, it would
>also have to lead the environmental change and it would have to be passed
>on by mating successfully before it died. If the mutant information is
>created so rarely, then the chances are not good that the mutant
>information would be available again for a considerable time following
>an unsuccessful mating. ie, the new information would die with the host.
>But, believe what you want!
>-Jim
>
like this one. Jim, natural selection has no foresight at all. It works
on random variations. There's a pool of these in each species; that's
easily observed these days. Now, if their environment changes, so that
most of the species die (let's keep the example simple) but only that
minority with a particular hereditary variant survive, evolution has
occurred. The modern Darwinian synthesis does not include "directed"
variation and certainly doesn't require that any occur.
--
Richard Keatinge
The talk.origins FAQs are at http://www.talkorigins.org
Ken Livingston
ad...@pgfn.bc.ca (Jim Alexander) wrote:
> In a previous article, ken...@pcug.org.au (Ken Livingston) says:
> >We know that the evolution of new species is not uniform over time, of
> >course, but no matter how you slice it, your entire lifespan or mine is
> >nothing compared to the evolutionary timescale.
>
> With environmental changes happening considerably sooner than the
> necessary reaction time for the mutant to survive the doomed species,
> evolution could not be responsible for survival of any species. It's just
> too slow.
Well sure - evolution is not responsible for survival of any species in
this sense, because the emergence of a new species means that it is no
longer the same species as that from which it evolved - by definition.
> In Darwin's theory, survival of the species depends on mutant genetic
> information being formed in the species that would be killed off by an
> environmental change.
And in fact, most species have not survived.
> At the rate mutation happens, in order for the mutant information to be
> successfully passed on to the new species, it would also have to lead the
> environmental change and it would have to be passed on by mating
> successfully before it died.
Okay.
> If the mutant information is created so rarely, then the chances are not
> good that the mutant information would be available again for a considerable
> time following an unsuccessful mating. ie, the new information would die
> with the host.
True. But mutant information created too frequently could cause instability
in populations and destroy the species. So yes, mutations must be relatively
rare within populations. Yet environmental changes that would threaten the
existence of a given species must also be relatively rare (regardless of
evolutionary theory) - else the given species would not survive and would not
exist today.
> But, believe what you want!
Believing has nothing to do with it. I certainly have no axes to grind or
any vested interest in defending particular theories. We can go only on
the best available evidence.
Cheers,
julie beth wood
> >
> Ken Livingstone says:
> >
> >But okay, assuming that the first protozoa emerged about 2 billion years ago,
> >this still yields just one new species every 200 million years - on average.
> >
> >course, but no matter how you slice it, your entire lifespan or mine is
> >nothing compared to the evolutionary timescale.
> >
> With environmental changes happening considerably sooner than the
> necessary reaction time for the mutant to survive the doomed species,
> evolution could not be responsible for survival of any species. It's just
> too slow.
Remember however, that species does not equal population.
In cases of sudden and extreme environmental change, it is often
populations on the "fringe" (that is, the edge of the species'
geographic range, or even at the extremes of variation in a given trait
in that population) that are able to survive. and these same
(geographical) fringe populations are more likely to be affected by
genetic drift, regardless of mutation rate (whether there are mutations
or not).
> In Darwin's theory, survival of the species depends on mutant genetic
> information being formed in the species that would be killed off by an
> environmental change.
Survival also depends on heritable variation (in existing traits) in the
species coping with the changing environment. That is, mutation might
not be necessary for the individuals to survive the environmental
change.
At the rate mutation happens, in order for the mutant
> information to be successfully passed on to the new species, it would
> also have to lead the environmental change and it would have to be passed
> on by mating successfully before it died. If the mutant information is
> created so rarely, then the chances are not good that the mutant
> information would be available again for a considerable time following
> an unsuccessful mating. ie, the new information would die with the host.
this may be why Mutation is not given all the credit for driving the
evolutionary process, y'think?
> But, believe what you want!
Beliefs are pretty much irrelevant to my end of this discussion.
-julie
> -Jim
Dirk
Jim Alexander wrote:
>
>
> With environmental changes happening considerably sooner than the
> necessary reaction time for the mutant to survive the doomed species,
> evolution could not be responsible for survival of any species. It's just
> too slow.
You have the idea that evolution occurs ONLY to preserve a species. A
species could be in no environmental danger, yet evolve.
> In Darwin's theory, survival of the species depends on mutant genetic
> information being formed in the species that would be killed off by an
> environmental change.
Genetic mutations make the raw material for evolution. However, you have
the idea that ONLY genetic mutaions can be selected upon. There are
natural variations in all populations. Evolution can occur considerably
without any genertic mutations.
> At the rate mutation happens, in order for the mutant
> information to be successfully passed on to the new species, it would
> also have to lead the environmental change and it would have to be passed
> on by mating successfully before it died. If the mutant information is
> created so rarely, then the chances are not good that the mutant
> information would be available again for a considerable time following
> an unsuccessful mating. ie, the new information would die with the host.
Most genetic variations are lost. However, as stated above, evolution
continues despite the lose of alomost all genertic variations. Some
variations do spread throughout the population simply because the
individuals who posses the variation has a much greater advantace of
living. And therefore, the individual passes on it's DNA.
> But, believe what you want!
It's not a matter of want, it's a matter of what I see.
> -Jim
Vladimir Svetlov
In article <33D420...@praxis.net>, Dirk <di...@praxis.net> wrote:
> Jim Alexander wrote:
> Genetic mutations make the raw material for evolution. However, you have
> the idea that ONLY genetic mutaions can be selected upon.
Selection acts on phenotypes, but if the result of selection is to be
"remembered" is has to be inheritable i.e. based on genetic
changes=mutations.
>
There are
> natural variations in all populations. Evolution can occur considerably
> without any genertic mutations.
This evolution will then be limited to one generation.
Regards,
V.