What *exactly* is the Theory of Evolution.
Gary Bohn
actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
(In my best James Brown voice).
Don't bogart that joint my friend.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
nitin_pa...@hotmail.com
1. Genes contain the blueprints for form and behavior of an organism.
2. Genes mutate during reproduction.
3. If the organism with the mutation survives long enough to
reproduce, then the mutation continues on to the next generation
exponentially.
END
Ian H Spedding
Chris Thompson
news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21:
> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
> (In my best James Brown voice).
>
> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
How about "Life originated once or a few times in history, and all
species are descendents of that single, or those few, species"?
catshark
<gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
>(In my best James Brown voice).
>
>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian theory
in 6 propositions:
1) reproduction: populations of organisms produce descendent populations of
similar organisms;
2) excess: the reproductive potential of parent populations always greatly
exceed the actual numbers of descendants;
3) variation: members of populations always vary. Much of the variation is
inherited and novelties (mutations) may appear;
4) environmental selection: space and resources are limited, there is
competition within and between populations for them. Individuals with
favorable characteristics of whatever sort will tend to compete
successfully and leave more descendants than other less lucky individuals;
5) divergence: environments vary in time and from place to place; heritable
variations suitable for those environments will be selected and populations
will diverge as each become adapted to its own environment;
6) common ancestry: the principle of divergence has no limit and the
diversity of life on Earth divergent descent of lineages from more or less
remote ancestors.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
Robert J. Kolker
Only if the mutation has a survival advantage. Most mutations are
lethal. In addition to mutation, there is chromosomal cross linking
which varies the the makeup of the chromosomes. This is another source
of genetic variation. Think of it as shuffling the deck.
Bob Kolker
Stanley Friesen
That isn't the *theory - that's the fact. The theory is the explanation
of the mechanisms by which this happened.
--
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
none
This is a common misconception. In fact, in the real world, mutations
have very little to do with evolution.
First, mutations are too rare to depend on them for adaptation to the
enviornment. Secondly, a mutation strikes at random, and the
gene/trait which is altered by it can produce either a survival
advantage, a fatal disadvantage, or an irrelevant change. So the
advantage kind is really rare.
Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower, and
the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors pass
on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each generation
for so long as the enviornment demands it.
Doug Chandler
Grendel
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
>>(In my best James Brown voice).
>>
>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
>
> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian theory
> in 6 propositions:
What he said here sums it up very nicely.
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one
thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology
staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got
was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology
Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of
evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and
eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing - it ought not to be
taught in high school.'"
-Dr. Colin Patterson (Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural
History, leading cladistic taxonomist), Keynote address at the American
Museum of Natural History, New York City, November 5, 1981.
"...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when
they say there are no transitional fossils... You say I should at least
'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was
derived.' I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for
which one could make a watertight argument."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.
This is good too.
"I would rather believe in fairy tales than in such wild speculation. I
have said for years that speculations about the origin of life lead to
no useful purpose as even the simplest living system is far too complex
to be understood in terms of the extremely primitive chemistry
scientists have used in their attempts to explain the unexplainable. God
cannot be explained away by such naive thoughts."
--Sir Ernst B. Chain, Nobel Laureate (Medicine, 1945), as quoted by
Ronald W. Clark, The Life of Ernst Chain (London: Weidenfield &
Nicolson, 1985), pp. 147-148.
"I must confess to a feeling of profound humility in the presence of a
universe which transcends us at almost every point. I feel like a child
who while playing by the seashore has found a few bright colored shells
and a few pebbles while the whole vast ocean of truth stretches out
almost untouched and unruffled before my eager fingers."
-Sir Isaac Newton, greatest scientist in history.
And more interesting thoughts on evolution...
"I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the
extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the
history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy
and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible
credulity that it has."
-Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal
Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
"Modern Apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They
have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern
humans - of upright, naked, tool-making big-brained humans - is, if we
are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter."
-Dr. Lyall Watson, "The Water People," Science Digest, Vol. 90, May
1982, p. 44.
"For example, no scientist could logically dispute the proposition that
man, without having been involved in any act of divine creation, evolved
from some ape-like creature in a very short space of time - speaking in
geological terms - without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the
transformation. As I have already implied, students of fossil primates
have not been distinguished for caution when working within the logical
constraints of their subject. The record is so astonishing that it is
legitimate to ask whether much science is yet to be found in this field
at all."
-Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.D., D.Sc., Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York:
Taplinger, 1970), p. 64.
"I wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right
in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web
of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments
against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders."
-Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution
Protest Movement, 1951.
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped
nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
-Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of
Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of
Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research. (Quoted
in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.)
"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of
evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living,
I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should
be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the
information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to
leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?"
-Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History, in letter to Luther Sunderland, April 10, 1979. Cited
in: Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems
(El Cajon, CA: Master Books, 1988), p. 89.
"It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to
another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by
natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there
is no way of putting them to the test."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.
"The fossil record of man is still so sparsely known that those who
insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one
hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery
does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn
from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and
popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no
doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence... I have gone
to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the
subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors."
-Fix, William R., The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Co., 1984), pp. 150-153. (Note: Fix is not a
creationist.)
"Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of [Bishop]
Wilberforce's criticisms of Darwin just as they would also accept the
criticisms raised by the geologist [and Christian clergyman] Adam
Sedgwick, whose review was published in The Spectator in April 1860...
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.
He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still
missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact
is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians
who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox
neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to
contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."
-Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the
British Association for the Advancement of Science.
"This does not mean that the profession is about to abandon Darwin
forever or indorse [sic] my views publicly. The situation remains much
as it was: the inner circles are full of doubt, but the public
utterances are confident. The doubts may be greater now and the
confidence less serene, but it will be a long time before the public is
given the full dark picture. There is still need for a dissenting voice,
a devil's advocate, a skeptical whistle-blower."
-Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit
Books, 1971), foreword. (Note: MacBeth, a lawyer, was an evolutionist.)
Boikat
"none" <prig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117548939....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> nitin_paul_batra wrote:
> > 1. Genes contain the blueprints for form and behavior of an organism.
> > 2. Genes mutate during reproduction.
> > 3. If the organism with the mutation survives long enough to
> > reproduce, then the mutation continues on to the next generation
> > exponentially.
>
> This is a common misconception. In fact, in the real world, mutations
> have very little to do with evolution.
>
> First, mutations are too rare to depend on them for adaptation to the
> enviornment.
Hence the relatively slow pace of evolution.
> Secondly, a mutation strikes at random, and the
> gene/trait which is altered by it can produce either a survival
> advantage, a fatal disadvantage, or an irrelevant change.
Hence, the relatively slow pace of evolution.
> So the
> advantage kind is really rare.
And results in the relatively slow pace of the process of evolution. Other
than explaining why the process of evolution doesn't produce a whole batch
of new species every time an organism reproduces, was there a point?
>
> Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower, and
> the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors pass
> on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each generation
> for so long as the enviornment demands it.
And where does this differential reproductive success come from? Variations
of traits within the population, right? Where do these variations of traits
come from... Mutations? Or did I miss something..again?
Boikat
--
<42><
Chris Thompson
news:3g34dpF...@individual.net:
I think its generally agreed that most mutations are neutral, or
slightly detrimental. Most chromosomal mutations (deletions,
translocations, what have you) might be lethal, but most point mutations
are neutral.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
VoiceOfReason
<snip quote-mining>
If all you have is standard out-of-context quote mining, please don't
waste otherwise useful bandwidth.
Chris Thompson
news:5tqo91llid3lr8kiu...@4ax.com:
I disagree.
The facts are:
There are morphological similarities (homologies) between species.
There are developmental similarities between species.
There are genetic similarities between species.
Similar species tend to be geographically close to one another, or
occupy areas that were once geographically close.
(There are others, obviously, but these will do for now.)
Q: What explains these facts?
A: Common descent.
This is the "fact" about which Gould wrote "...it would be perverse to
deny it" (or some close paraphrase thereof). But it isn't a "fact" in
the sense of something observed in the real world; it is a conclusion
which has been established beyond all reasonable doubt- such that now
there exists only unreasonable doubt (who had that for a .sig?).
Natural selection and drift are two theories about the mechanisms by
which evolution proceeds and generates the diversity of organisms we see
around us, and there exist considerable data for both.
Grendel
Keep the faith VOR...keep the faith.
"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith
was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried
out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin."
-Dr. Colin Patterson, quoted by Brian Leith, The Listener, 8 October
1981, p. 392.
"It is a religion of science that Darwinism held, and holds men's
minds... The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has
itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious
fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
scientific faith."
-Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower, and
> the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors pass
> on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each generation
> for so long as the enviornment demands it.
Incrementally yes. Gradually no. Punctuated Equilibrium is well
supported by evidence.
Bob Kolker
none
Boikat wrote:
> > Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower, and
> > the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors pass
> > on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each generation
> > for so long as the enviornment demands it.
>
> And where does this differential reproductive success come from? Variations
> of traits within the population, right? Where do these variations of traits
> come from... Mutations? Or did I miss something..again?
It seems that you have.
There is a group of people in a room, and you notice that there is 8
inches difference between the tallest and the shortest, do you
attribute that to mutation?
Think carefully.
Doug Chandler
Chris Thompson
{snip}
I hear somethin' sayin'
(hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
(hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
(Well, don't you know)
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
All day long they're singin'
(hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
(hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
(Well, don't you know)
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
All day long they type so hard
To remove every context
Working on ev'ry journal and text
And wearing, wearing 'em down
You hear them typin' their lives away
Then you hear somebody sa-ay
(hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
Can't ya hear them typin'
Mm, I'm goin' home one of these years
Ain't gonna do no more hypin'
No more lies in a body's ear
But meanwhile I got to work right he-ere
(Well, don't you know)
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
All day long they're singin', mm
My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my work is so hard
Give me truth, I'm thirsty!
With apologies to Sam Cook
Chris Thompson
> catshark wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>
>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>
>>
>> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>> theory in 6 propositions:
>
> What he said here sums it up very nicely.
Grendel, stop right there.
Look down.
See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
the Quote-Mine Project? You're not that suicidal loony they got down
from that crane in Atlanta are you?
Grendel
> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>
>
>>catshark wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>
>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>
>>>
>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>
>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>
>
>
> Grendel, stop right there.
>
> Look down.
>
> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
Apologies to MS.
>
> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
> the Quote-Mine Project?
Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
can assure you it's nothing personal.
You're not that suicidal loony they got down
> from that crane in Atlanta are you?
Are you that rabid evolutonist from down east?
"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both
are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the
present, has been capable of proof."
-L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of the
Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971), p. xi.
"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on
every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive
evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
-Dr. E.A. Maness.
"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is
incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an
orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic
statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
-Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).
>
loua...@yahoo.com
Stanley Friesen May 31, 9:51 am show options
Chris Thompson <rockwall...@TAKEOUThotmail.com> wrote:
>Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in
>news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21:
Stanley Friesen
(end quote)
If an analogy will help:
"I dropped a rock and it fell down" is a fact.
"Every time I ever dropped an unsupported rock it fell down, and the
same thing happened to everyone I ever heard of" is a collection of
facts.
"Gravity," on the other hand, is a theory which explains in great
detail exactly _how_ all those rocks and things fall. Because of its
greater precision, it can make not only rough predictions like "the
next rock I drop will fall, too" but detailed ones like "Applying X
force to this spacecraft will put it in orbit around Jupiter at Y
time." The theory is a pretty new one. Isaac Newton was the first
person to use "gravity" in the modern sense of the word, although
"stuff falls down" has been known much longer.
Newton's theory of gravity was pretty good on the "what happens" end
but notably weak on "what makes it happen." Einstein's restatement of
the theory is slightly different and more accurate about "what happens"
in some very specialized conditions, notably extremely high speeds. He
also did better on "what makes it happen" but that part of the theory
remains incomplete.
You know how creationists never tire of saying that evolution is "just
a theory"? Gravity is also just a theory, in the same sense, and always
will be no matter how many times we observe '"stuff falls down."
Nonetheless, you'd be a fool not to plan on the basis of "stuff falls
down" when building a bridge, for example.
Dana Tweedy
"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:hb0ne.26074$on1.2760@clgrps13...
snipping
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
No, see, lies of omission make Creationists look bad. No apologies to
Martha needed.
>
>>
>> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
>> the Quote-Mine Project?
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
> can assure you it's nothing personal.
Not when those quotes are taken out of context, meaning they are being used
in a deceptive manner.
Snipping more lies of omission.
DJT
Augray
news:<Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89>:
[snip]
> "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the
> extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the
> history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy
> and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible
> credulity that it has."
> -Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal
> Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
The above quote is taken from "The End of Christendom". Malcolm
Muggeridge was the guest lecturer in the Pascal lecture series at the
University of Waterloo, Ontario in 1978, and the quote is part of a
response to a question from a member of the audience. Immediately
afterwards, someone else asked another question, and the following
exchange takes place:
QUESTIONER: Mr. Muggeridge, next week Richard Leaked is going
to be speaking here on evolution. My question is, supposing you
are mistaken that the theory of evolution will be a curiosity.
What effect does this have on Christianity, if any?
MUGGERIDGE: I don't believe it's true.
QUESTIONER: That's not the point.
MUGGERIDGE: But it is the point. I beg your pardon. It's not
your point but it's my point.
QUESTIONER: I'm asking a hypothetical question. Would it make
a difference to Christianity if evolution were true?
MUGGERIDGE: Well, if it were true, I should have to consider
that. But as it isn't true, I don't have to.
This is the only 'reason' for Muggeridge's rejection of evolution that
I've been able to find after several years of on and off research,
because he feels that "it isn't true". One could use
the same reasoning to reject the idea of a spherical Earth.
But a far more revealing portrait of Muggeridge can be found in an
article published a year after his death in 1990. Richard Nielsen
writes:
Malcolm Muggeridge (whom I did not wholly like) was undoubtedly
one of the best English-language journalists of the twentieth
century, but he broke what is supposedly the fundamental rule
of the trade: that facts are sacred. He had little or no use
for facts, and made little effort to discover them. Sometimes
he carried this contempt for "information" to startling lengths.
On my first visit to Robertsbridge, his home in Sussex, he spent
lunch attacking Ingmar Bergman, the great Swedish film director.
Bergman's preoccupations with sex ("sexx," as Malcolm pronounced
it) and psychology were enough to condemn him in his eyes. But
he carried his criticisms further, to a denunciation of all
sorts of tendencies in Bergman's films I must have missed.
After lunch, we put on our "wellies" and went for the mandatory
Muggeridge walk; Pat Ferns, my partner, walked ahead with
Malcolm, while Kitty, Malcolm's delightful wife, and I brought
up the rear. I confessed to her that the attack on Bergman had
surprised me, since Bergman was undoubtedly the only significant
filmmaker who had taken religion seriously and had explored
great religious themes.
"Oh," said Kitty cheerfully "I doubt that Malcolm has actually
ever seen a Bergman film. In fact, I'm sure he hasn't."
Nielsen gives another, more detailed example a few paragraphs later,
but I think the point is made. 詮acts' played little, if any, part in
Muggeridge's worldview, and his views on evolution should be weighed
accordingly.
REFERENCES
Muggeridge, Malcolm. 1980. The End of Christendom. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Nielsen, Richard. 1991. Truth vs. Facts; Richard Nielsen on Malcolm
Muggeridge. The Idler, July and August 1991, pp. 60-61.
[snip the rest]
SDM Technical Constultants
>
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
> can assure you it's nothing personal.
>
>
There are sins of commission and sins of omission. Quote-mining is a
sin of omission because it is the practice of carefully editing a quote
to distort its meaning, to make it seem like the person quoted has a
viewpoint directly opposite to their actual beliefs.
You, suh, are a rascal and a liar.
Lt. Kizhe Catson
Ofercryinoutload. Get the hence to the FAQ, where the Patterson affair
is covered in some detail (notably, Patterson himself giving the lie to
the spin Creationists like to put on his words).
[snip]
> And more interesting thoughts on evolution...
>
>
> "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the
> extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the
> history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy
> and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible
> credulity that it has."
> -Malcolm Muggeridge (world famous journalist and philosopher), Pascal
> Lectures, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Muggeridge a *philosopher*?! I understand he used to be a good
journalist, but the Brain Eater definitely got him in a big way before
the end. And he knew beans about science. Quoting him as any kind of
authority in this debate bespeaks a complete lack of critical abilities
on the part of the speaker (but we knew that).
[rest snipped]
-- Kizhe
Mark VandeWettering
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>
>>
>>>catshark wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>
>>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
You should apologize to Colin Patterson, whose words you are deliberately
presenting in a false and misleading manner.
Pitiful.
Mark
Gene Poole
> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
> (In my best James Brown voice).
>
> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
This comes from Futuyma's excellent textbook, Evolutionary Biology (1).
I think it sums up the "modern synthetic theory" pretty well:
Major Tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis
The principal claims of the Evolutionary Synthesis are the foundations
of modern evolutionary biology. They are known collectively as the
Synthetic Theory, and serve as a synopsis of much of contemporary
evolutionary theory. Many of these points have been extended,
exemplified, clarified, or modified since the 1940s. Although some
authors have challenged or even rejected some of these principles, the
vast majority of evolutionary biologists today accept them as valid and
use them as a foundation for evolutionary research. Subsequent chapters
of this book will present evidence bearing on these points.
1. The phenotype (observed physical characteristics) is different from
the genotype (the set of genes carried by an individual), and the
phenotypic differences among individual organisms can be due partly to
genetic differences and partly to direct effects of the environment.
2. Environmental effects on an individual's phenotype do not affect the
genes passed on to its offspring. That is, acquired characteristics are
not inherited. However, the environment may affect the expression of an
organism's genes.
3. Hereditary variations are based on particles--genes--that retain
their identity as they pass through the generations; genes do not
blend with other genes. This is true not only of those genes that have
discrete effects on the phenotype (e.g., brown vs. blue eyes), but also
of those that contribute to continuously varying traits (e.g., body
size, intensity of pigmentation). Variation in continuously varying
traits is largely based on several or many discrete genes, each of which
affects the trait slightly (polygenic inheritance).
4. Genes mutate, usually at a fairly low rate, to alternative forms
(alleles). The phenotypic effects of such mutations can range all the
way from undetectable to very great. The variation that arises by
mutation is amplified by recombination among alleles at different loci.
5. Environmental factors (e.g., chemicals, radiation) may affect the
rate of mutation, but they do not preferentially direct the production
of mutations that would be favorable in the organism's specific
environment.
Points 1-5 were important early contributions to the Synthetic Theory
from laboratory genetics.
6. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its
most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions) of
individual organisms with different genotypes (and hence, often, with
different phenotypes) within a population (see Figure 2.2). Over the
course of generations, the proportion of one genotype may gradually
increase, and it may eventually entirely replace the other type. This
process may occur within only certain populations, or in all the
populations that make up a species (see point 11).
7. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift an
entire population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change
in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of
two principal processes: random fluctuations in proportions (random
genetic drift) or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or
reproduction of some genotypes compared to others (natural selection).
Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously.
8. Even a slight intensity of natural selection can (under certain
circumstances) bring about substantial evolutionary change in a
relatively short time. Very slight differences between organisms can
confer slight differences in survival or reproduction; hence natural
selection can account for slight differences among species, and for the
earliest stages of evolution of new traits.
Points 6-8 were among the major contributions of the mathematical theory
of population genetics.
9. Selection can alter populations beyond the original range of
variation by increasing the proportion of alleles that, by recombination
with other genes that affect the same trait, give rise to new
phenotypes. (This point is a contribution from genetic studies of
agriculturally based plant and animal breeding.)
10. Natural populations are genetically variable: the individuals within
populations differ genetically and include natural genetic variants of
the kind that arise by mutation in laboratory stocks.
11. Populations of a species in different geographic regions differ in
characteristics that have a genetic basis. The genetic differences
among populations are often of the same kind that distinguish
individuals within populations. A genotype that is rare in one
population may be predominant in another.
12. Experimental crosses between different species, and between
different populations of the same species, show that most of the
differences between them have a genetic basis. The difference in each
trait is often based on differences in several or many genes (i.e., it
is polygenic), each of which has a small phenotypic effect. This finding
provides evidence that the differences between species evolve by small
steps rather than by single mutations with large phenotypic effects.
13. Natural selection occurs in natural populations at the present time,
often with considerable intensity.
Points 9-13 were contributions from those geneticists, most of whom had
a background in natural history, who studied natural populations.
14. Differences among geographic populations of a species are often
adaptive (hence, are the consequence of natural selection), because they
are frequently correlated with relevant environmental factors.
15. Organisms are not necessarily different species just because they
differ in one or more phenotypic characteristics; phenotypically
different genotypes often are members of a single interbreeding
population. Rather, different species represent distinct gene pools,
which are groups of interbreeding or potentially interbreeding
individuals that do not exchange genes with other such groups. This
reproductive isolation of species is based on certain genetically
determined differences between them. (This is one version of the
biological species concept.) Hence, even a mutation that causes
substantial change in some phenotypic feature does not necessarily
represent the origin of a new species.
16. Nevertheless, there is a continuum in degree of differentiation of
populations, with respect to both phenotypic difference and degree of
reproductive isolation, from barely differentiated populations to fully
distinct species. This observation provides evidence that an ancestral
species differentiates into two or more different species by the gradual
accumulation of small differences rather than by a single mutational
step.
17. Speciation--the origin of two or more species from a single
common ancestor--usually occurs through the genetic differentiation
of geographically segregated populations. Geographic segregation is
required so that interbreeding does not prevent incipient genetic
differences from developing.
18. Among living organisms, there are many gradations in phenotypic
characteristics among species assigned to the same genus, to different
genera, and to different families or other higher taxa. This observation
is interpreted as evidence that higher taxa arise through the prolonged,
sequential accumulation of small differences, rather than through the
sudden mutational origin of drastically new "types."
Points 14-18 were contributed chiefly by systematists and naturalists
who studied particular taxonomic groups.
19. The fossil record includes many gaps among quite different
kinds of organisms, as well as gaps between possible ancestors and
descendants. Such gaps can be explained by the incompleteness of
the fossil record. But the fossil record also includes examples of
gradations from apparently ancestral organisms to quite different
descendants. Together with point 18, this leads to the conclusion that
the evolution of large differences proceeds by many small steps (such
as those that lead to the differentiation of geographic populations and
closely related species). Hence we can extrapolate from the genesis of
small differences to the evolution of large differences among higher
taxa, and can explain the latter by the same principles that explain
the evolution of populations and species.
20. Consequently, all observations of the fossil record are consistent
with the foregoing principles of evolutionary change (although they
do not prove that these mechanisms provide a necessary and sufficient
explanation). There is no need to invoke, and in some instances there
is evidence against, non-Darwinian hypotheses such as Lamarckian
mechanisms, orthogenetic evolution, vitalism ("inner drives"), or abrupt
origins by major mutations.
Points 19 and 20 were among the contributions of paleontologists.
1. D.J. Futuyma. 1997. Evolutionary biology 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates,
Sunderland, Massachussetts.
Chris Thompson
news:1117553984.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
You are attempting to apply mutation where it does not fit, and in a
situation I don't think Boikat intended. If you look at pea plants and
notice an 8 inch difference between the height of the tallest and the
shortest, it assuredly is due to mutation. There's a completely
different pattern of inheritance in humans (additive alleles) to say
nothing of penetrance and environmental effects.
But ultimately, the source of all variation that matters to evolution is
to be found in mutation.
Augray
news:<hb0ne.26074$on1.2760@clgrps13>:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
> > Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
> >
> >
> >>catshark wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
> >>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> >>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> >>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
> >>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
> >>>>
> >>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
> >>>theory in 6 propositions:
> >>
> >>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
> >
> >
> >
> > Grendel, stop right there.
> >
> > Look down.
> >
> > See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
Even if they don't reflect the "quotee's" true position?
> > Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
> > the Quote-Mine Project?
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
> can assure you it's nothing personal.
You should be more worried about quotes that make you look like a liar.
Believe me, it's nothing personal.
> You're not that suicidal loony they got down
> > from that crane in Atlanta are you?
>
> Are you that rabid evolutonist from down east?
>
> "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
> in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
> theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
> evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both
> are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the
> present, has been capable of proof."
> -L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of the
> Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971), p. xi.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html#quote4.7
Speaking teleologically, the production of vast numbers of animals
merely to destroy them seems pointless, but then all the phenomena
of life are, in the ultimate analysis, equally pointless, for all
end in the final frustration of death. The only biological things
that can be regarded as immortal are the self-replicating molecules
of DNA in the minute proportion of germ cells that produce another
generation.
-L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, The Life of Mammals, Volume One
(London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969), p. 283.
> "If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on
> every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive
> evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
> -Dr. E.A. Maness.
Which doesn't speak against evolution. You don't have to be an atheist
to believe it happens.
> "It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is
> incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an
> orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic
> statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
> -Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).
Which *also* doesn't speak against evolution. These kind of quotes make
you look like you don't know what you're talking about. With you, it
seems that appearances are not deceiving.
John Harshman
> On 2005-05-31, Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
>
>>Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>catshark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>>
>>>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel, stop right there.
>>>
>>>Look down.
>>>
>>>See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>>
>>No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
>>Apologies to MS.
>
>
> You should apologize to Colin Patterson, whose words you are deliberately
> presenting in a false and misleading manner.
Deliberately? Nonsense. Grendel has never read any more from Patterson
than the mined quotes he regurgitates from web sites. He has no more
idea of what Patterson said, or meant, than a dead monkey does. Thus he
can't be deliberately presenting it falsely. Ignorance is a perfect
defense against the charge of lying.
[snip]
er...@swva.net
Grendel wrote:
>
And yet another creationist breaks down in a pitiful attack of
quote-mining.
Eric Root
er...@swva.net
>
(snip)
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
>
There are no such quotes; if they are from anti-scientists such as
creationists, they truly make the anti-scientists look bad. If they
are from scientists, then they are attempts by you to deceive by making
it look like scientists mean something they don't. The only one quote
mining makes look bad is the sorry character who does it (this means
you).
Eric Root
TeaWrecks
"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21...
>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
> (In my best James Brown voice).
>
> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
> Gary Bohn
>
> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
I think SJ Gould best strips it down to it's bare bones:
"Darwin devotes the beginning chapters of the Origin of Species to
validating the three facts:
1. All organisms tend to produce more offspring than can possibly survive
(Darwin's generation gave this principle the lovely name of
"superfecundity").
2. Offspring vary among themselves, and are not carbon copies of an
immutable type.
3. At least some of this variation is passed down by inheritance to future
generations. (Darwin did not know the mechanism of heredity, for Mendel's
principles did not gain acceptance until early in our century. However, this
third fact requires no knowledge of how heredity works, but only an
acknowledgment that heredity exists. And mere existence is undeniable folk
wisdom. We know that black folks have black kids; white folks, white kids;
tall parents tend to have tall children; and so on.)
The principle of natural selection then emerges as a necessary inference
from these facts:
4. If many offspring must die (for not all can be accommodated in nature's
limited ecology), and individuals in all species vary among themselves, then
on average (as a statistical statement, and not in every case), survivors
will tend to be those individuals with variations that are fortuitously best
suited to changing local environments. Since heredity exists, the offspring
of survivors will tend to resemble their successful parents. The
accumulation of these favorable variants through time will produce
evolutionary change."
The rest can be read at:
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/selection/fullhouse.html
Pfusand
Gary Bohn wrote:
> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
> (In my best James Brown voice).
>
> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
> --
> Gary Bohn
>
> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
> emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
Here's the short version:
Descent with modification.
As Rabbi Hillel is supposed to have said, "The rest is commentary. Go
forth and learn."
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
eNo
> "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to
> another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by
> natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there
> is no way of putting them to the test."
> -Dr. Colin Patterson, ibid.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/patterson.html
--
`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊
,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,
eNo
"Test everything; hold on to the good."
TeaWrecks
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
No, quotes that attempt to make evolution look bad, invariable turn out to
be taken extremely out of context or just plain lies
>>
>> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
>> the Quote-Mine Project?
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
> can assure you it's nothing personal.
No, quotes that lie about me and my beliefs outrage me. Do you passively
allow folks to spread lies that you are a child molester?
> "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus
> in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
> theory - is it then a science or a faith?
Oh more quotes... proving nothing except your incapacity for original
thought. Explain then, the massive success of modern medical science? It is
largely based upon evolutionary biology.
Augray
news:<Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89>:
[snip]
> "Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of [Bishop]
> Wilberforce's criticisms of Darwin just as they would also accept the
> criticisms raised by the geologist [and Christian clergyman] Adam
> Sedgwick, whose review was published in The Spectator in April 1860...
> Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin.
> He felt sure that they would eventually turn up, but they are still
> missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of that fact
> is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional neo-Darwinians
> who appear as the conservative bigots and the unorthodox
> neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists prepared to
> contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see."
> -Professor Sir Edmund Leach, addressing the 1981 Annual Meeting of the
> British Association for the Advancement of Science.
This is from "Men, Bishops and Apes" (Nature 293:19-21, September 3rd,
1981). Here's the original quote:
Scientists of the highest standing would today accept many of
Wilberforce's criticisms of Darwin just as they would also accept
the criticisms raised by the geologist Adam Sedgwick, whose review
was published in The Spectator in April 1860.
At this point we encounter ellipses in the quote as posted, but in the
original, Leach continues:
Indeed I suspect that had Darwin known as much as we do about the
mechanism of genetic mutations and about the recurrent pattern in
the fossil record of long-term stability followed by sudden change,
he himself, had he been alive, would have been a convert to the
neo-Sedgwickian views now being advanced from Harvard by Stephen
Jay Gould.
Since Gould, one of the co-originators of the idea of Punctuated
Equilibria, believes that evolution has occurred, it seems obvious that
Leach believes that "Scientists of the highest standing" wouldn't have a
problem with evolution. Leach continues:
For despite his heresies Gould is not essentially a Darwinian. The
point is simply that orthodox Darwinian theory maintains that
evolution occurred as a gradual process of innumerable very small
changes. Darwin's original opponents stood for sudden change,
either as a consequence of divine intervention or as the result of
natural catastrophe. But Darwin adapted his gradualist view of
evolution mainly because he could not imagine how any biological
mechanism could create the appearance of sudden discontinuity and
he emphatically did not want to believe in divine intervention.
So Leach isn't criticizing *evolution*, but Gradualism. This explains
his statement six paragraphs later, which fall immediately after the
ellipses in the mined quote:
Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to
Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are
still missing and seem likely to remain so. What we are to make of
that fact is still open to debate, but today it is the conventional
neo-Darwinians who appear as the conservative bigots and the
unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians who rate as enlightened rationalists
prepared to contemplate the evidence that is plain for all to see.
Since, as we've already seen, "unorthodox neo-Sedgwickians" are people
like Gould who believe that evolution has occurred, the statement isn't
as damning as it might seem. And it's all but certain that the reason
Leach thinks that missing links will remain missing is not because he
believes that they never existed, but because transitional forms would
exist only for a brief instant in geological time, and so would be
unlikely to be found in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibria asserts
that biological change is uneven, not nonexistent.
The point should also be driven home that Leach's "unorthodox
neo-Sedgwickians", who believe that evolution has occurred, are referred
to as "enlightened rationalists". And although creationists aren't
mentioned, it's doubtful that Leach would have a high opinion of them.
[snip the rest]
Boikat
"none" <prig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1117553984.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not totally, however, genetics certainly influances height, as can diet and
general health. If these 8 individuals of differeing height all had
basically the same identical diet and all in good health for all their
lives, how would you explain their differences in height? Lofty thinking?
>
> Think carefully.
I did. Did you?
Boikat
--
<42><
Chris Thompson
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in
>> news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>
>>
>>>catshark wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the
>>>>>theory and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please,
>>>>>please, please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>
>>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
Well to tell you the truth, I could not agree more.
That is, if the quotes are legitimate, taken in context, they originated
from reasonable people, they are referenced correctly, and they are
backed with suitable supporting evidence.
Let's see about your quotes:
1. They all seemed legitimate- that is, you attributed them to people
who actually wrote those words. 2. Taken in context? Well, here we have
a little problem. Most of your quotes seem to fail that test, you know.
There are some others that are just spaghetti distractions- you're
thowing anything you can against the wall just hoping something will
stick. 3. Reasonable people? By this I don't mean the individuals were
sane or affable, but- is it reasonable to quote these people? You blew
it again. Your quote from Newton is a good example- if evolution hadn't
even been proposed until after his death, what makes him any kind of
expert on the matter? 4. You seem to have provided sufficient
information to check the citations. 5. Suitable evidence? Once again,
you get the gong.
>
>>
>> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator
>> of the Quote-Mine Project?
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you?
Actually, I was not talking about myself. I was referring of course to
catshark. There's no reason you should care, really. No one else cares
what you write, so you probably shouldn't either. You're a known liar,
and you are apparently a shameless one too, so write what you feel like!
It's not like you have a reputation to salvage.
And about belief system thing- first off, it surprises no one that you
cannot distinguish between reason and belief. When you spend you're time
in lala land, there's no apparent distinction. And as for embarassing
me, well, I bet there are a lot more Christians cringing at your antics
than atheists.
> I can assure you it's nothing personal.
Before offense can be taken, one must acknowledge the credibility of the
one giving offense. So, none taken.
>
>
> You're not that suicidal loony they got down
>> from that crane in Atlanta are you?
>
> Are you that rabid evolutonist from down east?
Nope, no Lyssaviruses here, thank goodness.
Not much one for allegory, are you?
>
> "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
> thus
> in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
> theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
> evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -
> both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
> the present, has been capable of proof."
> -L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of the
> Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971), p. xi.
You cannot be serious. Please. Are you a Loki Master? What chutzpah to
quote from the Intro to "Origin" in an attempt to discredit evolution.
Chutzpah, yes; credibility and common sense- no.
>
> "If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on
> every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive
> evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
> -Dr. E.A. Maness.
>
> "It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is
> incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an
> orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most
> majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
> -Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).
Ahh I take back the credit I gave you for proper attribution of your
mined quotes. Reverted to form I see.
You are a silly silly person.
Raymond E. Griffith
on 5/31/05 12:22 PM:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>
>>
>>> catshark wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>>> please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>> theory in 6 propositions:
>>>
>>> What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>
>>
>>
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
> Apologies to MS.
>
>>
>> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
>> the Quote-Mine Project?
>
> Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
> your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
> care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
> can assure you it's nothing personal.
>
Sure it is. But the quotes you give from scientists, far from making
evolution look silly, make you look like an immoral fool. For the quotes are
usually engineered to leave out the details or contexts and make it appear
that the writer is saying something he or she is not.
As an example, one could assert that the Scriptures command fornication,
saying, "Thou shalt ... commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14).
And by putting forward these "quotes" which have been demonstrated time and
again to be corrupted and false, you participate in the lies. Are you a
Christian, Jist? Where do liars go? Why in heaven or earth would you believe
God wants you to spread a lie in order to defend what you think is the
truth?
Such behavior shows the poverty of your faith, the impotence of your
salvation, and the depth of your neglect of the very Scripture you claim to
defend.
But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning to
"repent" the day before you die?
Raymond E. Griffith
catshark
[...]
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
>No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
>Apologies to MS.
Besides lying by omission, does being a plagiarist embarrass you? That is,
of course, unless you are Eric of "Eric's InfoCenter" here:
<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/>
and *his* list of quote mines, half-truths and misrepresentations here:
<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7547/cequotes.html>
>
>>
>> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
>> the Quote-Mine Project?
>
>Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
>your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
>care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you? I
>can assure you it's nothing personal.
Trust us, none offense taken . . . given the source and the material.
But turnabout being fair play:
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the
heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit
of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the
predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the
seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this
knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it
is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian,
presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these
topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing
situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh
it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is
derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred
writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose
salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected
as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they
themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about
our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning
the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of
heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts
which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?
Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble
and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their
mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound
by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly
foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy
Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they
think support their position, although they understand neither what they
say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]
St Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri
duodecim)
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
The Moral Sense teaches us what is right,
and how to avoid it . . .
-- Mark Twain --
catshark
>This is from "Men, Bishops and Apes" (Nature 293:19-21, September 3rd,
>1981).
Appearing soon (for some value of the term) in a Qupote Mine Project near
you.
Malcom M.'s probably won't, since he wasn't being misrepresented, but it
will be tucked away for personal use the next time someone as stupid as
Grendel shows up.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
And of the butterfly
And of the breeze, amen
- Emily Dickinson -
none
Boikat wrote:
> > There is a group of people in a room, and you notice that there is 8
> > inches difference between the tallest and the shortest, do you
> > attribute that to mutation?
>
> Not totally, however, genetics certainly influances height, as can diet and
> general health. If these 8 individuals of differeing height all had
What 8 individuals?
You aren't even tracking this conversation.
Goodbye:
Doug Chandler
catshark
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>> On 2005-05-31, Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
[...]
>> You should apologize to Colin Patterson, whose words you are deliberately
>> presenting in a false and misleading manner.
>
>Deliberately? Nonsense. Grendel has never read any more from Patterson
>than the mined quotes he regurgitates from web sites. He has no more
>idea of what Patterson said, or meant, than a dead monkey does. Thus he
>can't be deliberately presenting it falsely. Ignorance is a perfect
>defense against the charge of lying.
Homicide by reckless disregard of human life can get you just as much time
as intentional murder. ;-)
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
LAWYER, n.
One skilled in circumvention of the law.
- Ambrose Bierce -
Gary Bohn
news:Xns96673F9172444ct...@207.217.125.201:
> Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in
> news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21:
>
>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>> please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>
>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>
>
> How about "Life originated once or a few times in history, and all
> species are descendents of that single, or those few, species"?
>
>
Thanks. Not formal enough for my purposes. Good enough for me, but
creationists are a different breed altogether.
Gary Bohn
news:1117521171.5...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Gary Bohn wrote:
>>
>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>> please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>
>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>
>> --
>> Gary Bohn
>>
>> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
>> emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
>
> http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA212.html
>
> Ian
>
> --
> Ian H Spedding
>
>
Thanks Ian, but I was looking for a written version of the theory, not a
description of evolution.
Gary Bohn
news:Xns966774C4E506Cer...@128.228.100.230:
> Stanley Friesen <sar...@friesen.net> wrote in
> news:5tqo91llid3lr8kiu...@4ax.com:
>
>> Chris Thompson <rockw...@TAKEOUThotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Gary Bohn <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21:
>>>
>>>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the
>>>> theory and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please,
>>>> please, please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>
>>>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How about "Life originated once or a few times in history, and all
>>>species are descendents of that single, or those few, species"?
>>
>> That isn't the *theory - that's the fact. The theory is the
>> explanation of the mechanisms by which this happened.
>
> I disagree.
>
> The facts are:
>
> There are morphological similarities (homologies) between species.
> There are developmental similarities between species.
> There are genetic similarities between species.
> Similar species tend to be geographically close to one another, or
> occupy areas that were once geographically close.
>
> (There are others, obviously, but these will do for now.)
>
> Q: What explains these facts?
> A: Common descent.
>
> This is the "fact" about which Gould wrote "...it would be perverse to
> deny it" (or some close paraphrase thereof). But it isn't a "fact" in
> the sense of something observed in the real world; it is a conclusion
> which has been established beyond all reasonable doubt- such that now
> there exists only unreasonable doubt (who had that for a .sig?).
>
> Natural selection and drift are two theories about the mechanisms by
> which evolution proceeds and generates the diversity of organisms we
> see around us, and there exist considerable data for both.
>
Ah, there we have the crux of the problem. I'm arguing with a very
stubbborn (three 'b') creationist who demands I present 'the' (single)
theory of evolution. I have given him the 'change in allele frequency'
bit but he correctly reminds me that that is the observation of
Gary Bohn
news:1117556912....@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Stanley Friesen May 31, 9:51 am show options
>
> Chris Thompson <rockwall...@TAKEOUThotmail.com> wrote:
>>Gary Bohn <garyb...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in
>>news:Xns9666E6615...@209.135.99.21:
>
>>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the
>>> theory and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please,
>>> please, please (In my best James Brown voice).
>
>>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
>>How about "Life originated once or a few times in history, and all
>>species are descendents of that single, or those few, species"?
>
> That isn't the *theory - that's the fact. The theory is the
> explanation
> of the mechanisms by which this happened.
> --
> The peace of God be with you.
>
> Stanley Friesen
>
> (end quote)
>
> If an analogy will help:
>
> "I dropped a rock and it fell down" is a fact.
>
> "Every time I ever dropped an unsupported rock it fell down, and the
> same thing happened to everyone I ever heard of" is a collection of
> facts.
>
> "Gravity," on the other hand, is a theory which explains in great
> detail exactly _how_ all those rocks and things fall. Because of its
> greater precision, it can make not only rough predictions like "the
> next rock I drop will fall, too" but detailed ones like "Applying X
> force to this spacecraft will put it in orbit around Jupiter at Y
> time." The theory is a pretty new one. Isaac Newton was the first
> person to use "gravity" in the modern sense of the word, although
> "stuff falls down" has been known much longer.
>
> Newton's theory of gravity was pretty good on the "what happens" end
> but notably weak on "what makes it happen." Einstein's restatement of
> the theory is slightly different and more accurate about "what
> happens" in some very specialized conditions, notably extremely high
> speeds. He also did better on "what makes it happen" but that part of
> the theory remains incomplete.
>
> You know how creationists never tire of saying that evolution is "just
> a theory"? Gravity is also just a theory, in the same sense, and
> always will be no matter how many times we observe '"stuff falls
> down." Nonetheless, you'd be a fool not to plan on the basis of "stuff
> falls down" when building a bridge, for example.
>
>
You stopped way too early Louann, you forgot to include the actual
theory thingy. (Something like John's thingy, maybe)
Gary Bohn
news:3tco91tt0d1v7lif5...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
>>(In my best James Brown voice).
>>
>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
> theory in 6 propositions:
>
> 1) reproduction: populations of organisms produce descendent
> populations of similar organisms;
> 2) excess: the reproductive potential of parent populations always
> greatly exceed the actual numbers of descendants;
> 3) variation: members of populations always vary. Much of the
> variation is inherited and novelties (mutations) may appear;
> 4) environmental selection: space and resources are limited, there is
> competition within and between populations for them. Individuals with
> favorable characteristics of whatever sort will tend to compete
> successfully and leave more descendants than other less lucky
> individuals; 5) divergence: environments vary in time and from place
> to place; heritable variations suitable for those environments will be
> selected and populations will diverge as each become adapted to its
> own environment; 6) common ancestry: the principle of divergence has
> no limit and the diversity of life on Earth divergent descent of
> lineages from more or less remote ancestors.
>
Thanks catshark, that is much closer to what I need.
Gary Bohn
news:slrnd9p7jn....@wweb.owens-ill.com:
<snip great stuff>
Wow!. Thank you Gene, for all the work you went to typing that in for
me. (Or scanned, or found on the net, whatever) That is what I needed.
Gary Bohn
news:qw3ne.3298$rb6.404@lakeread07:
Thanks, handy stuff to know.
Boikat
Sorry, I work mids, and was half asleep. having said that, the same
argument stands: Where does the varioation i height come from, if you
eliminate diet?
Boikat
Gary Bohn
news:1117570311....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Gary Bohn wrote:
>> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>> actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>> and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>> please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>
>> Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>
>> --
>> Gary Bohn
>>
>> Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
>> emotionally modifies evidence to fit the bible.
>
> Here's the short version:
>
> Descent with modification.
>
Donkey Shine. That I will use, just to sucker the creationist in for
more accurate kick in the pants.
Gary Bohn
news:1117553984.5...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Boikat wrote:
>
>> > Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower,
>> > and the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The
>> > survivors pass on the winning traits, which incrementally improve
>> > with each generation for so long as the enviornment demands it.
>>
>> And where does this differential reproductive success come from?
>> Variations of traits within the population, right? Where do these
>> variations of traits come from... Mutations? Or did I miss
>> something..again?
>
> It seems that you have.
>
> There is a group of people in a room, and you notice that there is 8
> inches difference between the tallest and the shortest, do you
> attribute that to mutation?
>
> Think carefully.
>
> Doug Chandler
>
>
Isn't that attributable to genetic drift? Or have I been snowed?
Gary Bohn
news:eA_me.30187$6k7...@bignews4.bellsouth.net:
> "none" <prig...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1117548939....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> nitin_paul_batra wrote:
>> > 1. Genes contain the blueprints for form and behavior of an
>> > organism. 2. Genes mutate during reproduction.
>> > 3. If the organism with the mutation survives long enough to
>> > reproduce, then the mutation continues on to the next generation
>> > exponentially.
>>
>> This is a common misconception. In fact, in the real world,
>> mutations have very little to do with evolution.
>>
>> First, mutations are too rare to depend on them for adaptation to the
>> enviornment.
>
> Hence the relatively slow pace of evolution.
>
>> Secondly, a mutation strikes at random, and the
>> gene/trait which is altered by it can produce either a survival
>> advantage, a fatal disadvantage, or an irrelevant change.
>
> Hence, the relatively slow pace of evolution.
>
>> So the
>> advantage kind is really rare.
>
> And results in the relatively slow pace of the process of evolution.
> Other than explaining why the process of evolution doesn't produce a
> whole batch of new species every time an organism reproduces, was
> there a point?
>
>>
>> Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower,
>> and the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors
>> pass on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each
>> generation for so long as the enviornment demands it.
>
> And where does this differential reproductive success come from?
> Variations of traits within the population, right? Where do these
> variations of traits come from... Mutations? Or did I miss
> something..again?
>
> Boikat
Have you checked to see if your socks are the same and on straight? I
sometimes miss wearing underwear, but you didn't really need to know
that did you?
Gary Bohn
> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in
> news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>
>> catshark wrote:
>>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the
>>>>theory and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please,
>>>>please, please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>
>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>
>>>
>>> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>> theory in 6 propositions:
>>
>> What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>
>
> Grendel, stop right there.
>
> Look down.
>
> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator of
> the Quote-Mine Project? You're not that suicidal loony they got down
> from that crane in Atlanta are you?
>
ROTFLMAO.
Gary Bohn
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Grendel wrote:
>>
>> <snip quote-mining>
>>
>> If all you have is standard out-of-context quote mining, please don't
>> waste otherwise useful bandwidth.
>>
>
> Keep the faith VOR...keep the faith.
>
>
> "Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith
> was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being
> carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin."
> -Dr. Colin Patterson, quoted by Brian Leith, The Listener, 8 October
> 1981, p. 392.
>
> "It is a religion of science that Darwinism held, and holds men's
> minds... The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory
> has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with
> religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers
> imperfect in scientific faith."
> -Marjorie Grene, Encounter, November 1959, p. 48.
>
>
No, no, no! What is the theory of evolution? You of all people must
know.
Alan Morgan
You are probably screwed. Gravity is generally pretty well understood,
but the "simple" theory of gravity isn't very simple and has holes in
it (some of them black. Chuckle chuckle). And there isn't just one.
I don't see why evolution would be any more cleanly defined.
If I were going to explain it to the average (hu)man in the street, I'd
probably say that natural selection and genetic drift are responsible
for the diversity of life on Earth today.
Alan
--
Defendit numerus
John Harshman
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 18:31:17 GMT, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 2005-05-31, Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Chris Thompson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>>You should apologize to Colin Patterson, whose words you are deliberately
>>>presenting in a false and misleading manner.
>>
>>Deliberately? Nonsense. Grendel has never read any more from Patterson
>>than the mined quotes he regurgitates from web sites. He has no more
>>idea of what Patterson said, or meant, than a dead monkey does. Thus he
>>can't be deliberately presenting it falsely. Ignorance is a perfect
>>defense against the charge of lying.
>
>
> Homicide by reckless disregard of human life can get you just as much time
> as intentional murder. ;-)
>
Yeah, but it's a different crime. Grendel's crime is arrogant ignorance,
not lying.
Gary Bohn
news:1117587800.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Boikat wrote:
>
>> > There is a group of people in a room, and you notice that there is
>> > 8 inches difference between the tallest and the shortest, do you
>> > attribute that to mutation?
>>
>> Not totally, however, genetics certainly influances height, as can
>> diet and general health. If these 8 individuals of differeing height
>> all had
>
> What 8 individuals?
>
The 8 individual inches, standing in between the tallest (Billy Bob,
also holding a Miller Lite) and shortest (Sylvia, with a Red Bull in her
hand).
Raymond E. Griffith
jharshman....@pacbell.net wrote on 5/31/05 9:56 PM:
Nah, he's a liar alright. He *knows* that the quotes are taken out of
context. He is smart enough to know that these quote mines are worthless,
and would be the first to object to their use if taken from Christian
sources against Christianity. But he doesn't care. His game is tweaking
evolutionists, and he doesn't care if it is legitimate or not. This is his
way of having fun. Righteousness or evangelism is really not in his game.
Jist (Grendel) has been around this topic a long time. He is arrogant. His
ignorance is entirely deliberate, though, considering that he has been faced
with the truth many times and he chooses to ignore it.
So while I could excuse his ignorance, I *have* to conclude that he is
indeed a liar.
Sigh. As a Christian, I am thoroughly embarrassed by his behavior. I have
tried to reason with him. I have tried to be nice. I have even quoted to him
the Scriptures dealing with how he ought to behave -- but he rejects all of
it. He is having too much fun being wicked while pretending to be godly to
do the right thing.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Steve Schaffner
> Boikat wrote:
>
> > > Instead, evolution operates by killing off the weaker, the slower, and
> > > the very slightly inferior in some trait or other. The survivors pass
> > > on the winning traits, which incrementally improve with each generation
> > > for so long as the enviornment demands it.
> >
> > And where does this differential reproductive success come from? Variations
> > of traits within the population, right? Where do these variations of traits
> > come from... Mutations? Or did I miss something..again?
>
> It seems that you have.
>
> There is a group of people in a room, and you notice that there is 8
> inches difference between the tallest and the shortest, do you
> attribute that to mutation?
I attribute 75% to 90% of the variation in height to mutation. Not
recent mutations, but mutations.
--
Steve Schaffner s...@broad.mit.edu
Immediate assurance is an excellent sign of probable lack of
insight into the topic. Josiah Royce
Ron O
catshark wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
> <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>
> >I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
> >actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
> >and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please, please
> >(In my best James Brown voice).
> >
> >Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>
> Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian theory
> in 6 propositions:
>
> 1) reproduction: populations of organisms produce descendent populations of
> similar organisms;
> 2) excess: the reproductive potential of parent populations always greatly
> exceed the actual numbers of descendants;
> 3) variation: members of populations always vary. Much of the variation is
> inherited and novelties (mutations) may appear;
> 4) environmental selection: space and resources are limited, there is
> competition within and between populations for them. Individuals with
> favorable characteristics of whatever sort will tend to compete
> successfully and leave more descendants than other less lucky individuals;
> 5) divergence: environments vary in time and from place to place; heritable
> variations suitable for those environments will be selected and populations
> will diverge as each become adapted to its own environment;
> 6) common ancestry: the principle of divergence has no limit and the
> diversity of life on Earth divergent descent of lineages from more or less
> remote ancestors.
>
> --
> ---------------
> J. Pieret
> ---------------
This is a part of the theory. Evolution is like all scientific
theories it tries to include all that is known.
The basic theory is fairly simple, but all the ifs ands and buts take
whole textbooks to describe. Just like the basic notion of gravity is
that bodies of mass attract. Biological evolution is just the fact
that life on earth has changed over the billions of years that it has
existed on earth. Once we figured out genetics you could state it as
allele frequency change over time. This is basically all evolution is.
Even in Darwin's time they had the concept of common ancestry. They
didn't know how many lifeforms were represented in the diversity of
life on earth, but it didn't seem to be many. Darwin claimed one or a
few. With what we know today it looks like one. This would be the
lifeform that evolved the basic genetic code that all extant lifeforms
share. There are still questions about how many lifeforms may have
contributed to the creation of the apparent common ancestor of all
extant lifeforms. That is a question that we probably will not be able
to answer without a time machine.
The above propositions are describing the reasoning behind natural
selection being one of the major factors dealing with how allele
frequencies change over time. You would need another set of
propositions to describe how genetic drift results in allele frequency
changes over time and how the two combine with other things like
mutation, and recombination to alter a populations genetic make up.
As lifeforms stand today, evolution is inevitable. There is no way to
stop it from occurring. There isn't a driving force known that can
stop it from happening with the way that life reproduces. The
creationist are fond of citing the second law and entropy increases.
Every time a cell divides something changes. There is a probablistic
distribution, but most of us have inherited a couple of hundred new
mutations from our parents. Even identical twins differ by the number
of mutations that occurred in the single cell division that separates
them. There is no perfect replication in nature. There isn't a
mechanism known that can stop all mutations from altering the existing
allele frequencies. Change has to happen it is only a question of how
much.
Even the IDiots know this. That is why they argue about "Darwinism."
They know that they have no valid arguments against biological
evolution. Even their arguments about Darwinism are loopy because they
can only argue that natural selection isn't the only mechanism acting
in nature. Everyone knows that they can't argue that natural selection
doesn't happen in nature. Everyone also should know that natural
selection isn't the only mechanism that seems to be acting in nature
that we can verify is contributing to the evolution of life on earth.
Right now the IDiots are trying to exploit the valid scientific
argument about how important is natural selection to the evolution of
life on earth. Their problem is that they don't have a valid
scientific alternative to enter the discussion with.
Ron Okimoto
catshark
<gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
You're welcome. Of course, there are certain additions made and changes in
emphasis by various theorists but the above is pretty basic.
BTW, I mangled that last point. It should read:
6) common ancestry: the principle of divergence has no limit and the
diversity of life on Earth _is explained by_ divergent descent of lineages
from more or less remote ancestors.
I should wait 'til the coffee kicks in before posting.
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
djhu...@aol.com
<snip long quote mine>
Quote miners are the Beavises and Buttheads of creationism/ID:
"Heh, heh, heh, he said God!"
Dennis
catshark
While 4 and 5 specifically adress adaptation (as any theory of evolution
must), how does 1, 2, 3 (especially) and 6 not include drift and
recombination?
Now, endosymbiosis, say, might need something else . . .
>
>As lifeforms stand today, evolution is inevitable. There is no way to
>stop it from occurring. There isn't a driving force known that can
>stop it from happening with the way that life reproduces. The
>creationist are fond of citing the second law and entropy increases.
>Every time a cell divides something changes. There is a probablistic
>distribution, but most of us have inherited a couple of hundred new
>mutations from our parents. Even identical twins differ by the number
>of mutations that occurred in the single cell division that separates
>them. There is no perfect replication in nature. There isn't a
>mechanism known that can stop all mutations from altering the existing
>allele frequencies. Change has to happen it is only a question of how
>much.
>
>Even the IDiots know this. That is why they argue about "Darwinism."
>They know that they have no valid arguments against biological
>evolution. Even their arguments about Darwinism are loopy because they
>can only argue that natural selection isn't the only mechanism acting
>in nature. Everyone knows that they can't argue that natural selection
>doesn't happen in nature. Everyone also should know that natural
>selection isn't the only mechanism that seems to be acting in nature
>that we can verify is contributing to the evolution of life on earth.
Yes. Even modern day "Darwinists" know it. Which is one of the reasons
the term is so slippery, even among scientists.
>Right now the IDiots are trying to exploit the valid scientific
>argument about how important is natural selection to the evolution of
>life on earth. Their problem is that they don't have a valid
>scientific alternative to enter the discussion with.
That much is certainly clear.
>
>Ron Okimoto
--
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
In the name of the bee
Chris Thompson
Ask him to give you the single, simple explanation of television. How
are those images produced on such that they shine through that piece of
glass? (Let's not go to plasma tv's:)
Only a simpleton demands that everything be simple.
The sad thing is that evolution really *is* simple in its basic form.
Life that exists today is descended from life that existed long ago. It
doesn't get easier than that.
Mechanisms are tougher.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Black helicopter mind-control-ray door-gunner
=====
"We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so
as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry
on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that
sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually
on a battlefield." --George Orwell, 1946, "Under Your Nose"
Boikat
"Gary Bohn" <gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9667C7B77...@209.135.99.21...
I have on a red sock on one foot, and a blue one on the other. But I also
have a matching pair in the sock drawer.
I
> sometimes miss wearing underwear, but you didn't really need to know
> that did you?
No.
Boikat
--
<42><
r norman
<ctho...@TAKEOUTbmcc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
>The sad thing is that evolution really *is* simple in its basic form.
>Life that exists today is descended from life that existed long ago. It
>doesn't get easier than that.
>
>Mechanisms are tougher.
You are right about simplification and complexity. But you simplify a
bit too much; you omit change. You statement is completely consistent
with creation: "Life that exists today is descended unchanged from
life that existed long ago -- at the time of creation".
It does need a bit more.
Chris Thompson
news:2bdr91d7th15t0038...@4ax.com:
Point taken. Perhaps I could coin a phrase: "...descended with
modification"?
:)
Dave
> I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find
> the theory actually written down. Is there a coherent
>
I find the most concise forms to be rather unsatisfying. Better to also
include a short summary of the parsimony since the TOE is meant to
explain the evidence.
---
Since NBA players and blonde rock stars have the most reproductive
success...
AC
Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
>> Grendel wrote:
>>
>> <snip quote-mining>
>>
>> If all you have is standard out-of-context quote mining, please don't
>> waste otherwise useful bandwidth.
>>
>
> Keep the faith VOR...keep the faith.
What sort of faith is it that requires that you use dishonest quote mines?
Your faith is very interesting. It seems to indicate that liars like
yourself are in good standing.
I see you still cowardly run away from my Big Bang challenge. Ah, to be
devoid of knowledge and honesty.
<snip>
AC
Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote:
> Chris Thompson wrote:
>> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>
>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Grendel, stop right there.
>>
>> Look down.
>>
>> See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>
> Apologies to MS.
It isn't making evolution look bad. It is making you and your religion look
bad. Fortunately there are Christians that will declare you a liar, or more
likely just an ignorant fool who goes to Creationist sites and picks up
quotes.
You have become pathetic beyond all imagining. You are just as idiotic and
dishonest and McNameless.
And you still are too frightened to answer my Big Bang challenge.
<snip>
Chris Thompson
news:182q91djcagbv0hsn...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:22:42 -0400, Augray <aug...@sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>This is from "Men, Bishops and Apes" (Nature 293:19-21, September 3rd,
>>1981).
>
> Appearing soon (for some value of the term) in a Qupote Mine Project
> near you.
>
> Malcom M.'s probably won't, since he wasn't being misrepresented, but
> it will be tucked away for personal use the next time someone as
> stupid as Grendel shows up.
>
Wow. Could be a long wait.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Grendel
> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:hb0ne.26074$on1.2760@clgrps13:
>
>
>>Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in
>>>news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>catshark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the
>>>>>>theory and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please,
>>>>>>please, please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>>
>>>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel, stop right there.
>>>
>>>Look down.
>>>
>>>See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>>
>>No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
>>Apologies to MS.
>
>
>
> That is, if the quotes are legitimate, taken in context, they originated
> from reasonable people, they are referenced correctly, and they are
> backed with suitable supporting evidence.
The only backing required is using the same words the originator did.
Any interpretation can only be credited to the reader.
>
> Let's see about your quotes:
>
> 1. They all seemed legitimate- that is, you attributed them to people
> who actually wrote those words. 2. Taken in context? Well, here we have
> a little problem. Most of your quotes seem to fail that test, you know.
> There are some others that are just spaghetti distractions- you're
> thowing anything you can against the wall just hoping something will
> stick. 3. Reasonable people? By this I don't mean the individuals were
> sane or affable, but- is it reasonable to quote these people? You blew
> it again. Your quote from Newton is a good example- if evolution hadn't
> even been proposed until after his death, what makes him any kind of
> expert on the matter? 4. You seem to have provided sufficient
> information to check the citations. 5. Suitable evidence? Once again,
> you get the gong.
The quotes, by definition, are an inherantly accurate record of what
the author has said. The interpretation is done solely by the reader.
You, as an evolutionist, will obviously take issue with said words that
do not support your beleif in evolution. Your issue should be with
those who make public comments that make your beliefs look silly.
>
>
>>>Man, do you realize you're throwing mined quotes at the Coordinator
>>>of the Quote-Mine Project?
>>
>>Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
>>your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
>>care? Do quotes that make your belief system look silly embarrass you?
>
>
> Actually, I was not talking about myself. I was referring of course to
> catshark. There's no reason you should care, really. No one else cares
> what you write, so you probably shouldn't either. You're a known liar,
> and you are apparently a shameless one too, so write what you feel like!
> It's not like you have a reputation to salvage.
That response with all the name-calling is typical evolutionist behavior.
You really must learn to control your emotions when people talk about
your belief in evolution.
>
> And about belief system thing- first off, it surprises no one that you
> cannot distinguish between reason and belief. When you spend you're time
> in lala land, there's no apparent distinction. And as for embarassing
> me, well, I bet there are a lot more Christians cringing at your antics
> than atheists.
Where you a Christian at some point in your life? You seem to indicate
a knowledge of Christianity with that last comment, that is why I am asking.
>
>
>>I can assure you it's nothing personal.
>
>
> Before offense can be taken, one must acknowledge the credibility of the
> one giving offense. So, none taken.
Good.
>
>
>>
>> You're not that suicidal loony they got down
>>
>>>from that crane in Atlanta are you?
>>
>>Are you that rabid evolutonist from down east?
>
>
> Nope, no Lyssaviruses here, thank goodness.
>
> Not much one for allegory, are you?
It has it's place.
>
>
>
>> "The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is
>> thus
>>in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved
>>theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of
>>evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation -
>>both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to
>>the present, has been capable of proof."
>>-L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's The Origin of the
>>Species (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1971), p. xi.
>
>
> You cannot be serious. Please. Are you a Loki Master? What chutzpah to
> quote from the Intro to "Origin" in an attempt to discredit evolution.
> Chutzpah, yes; credibility and common sense- no.
Are you not happy with the way the author phrased his thoughts?
I did not change them at all.
>
>
>>"If the word 'God' were written upon every blowing leaf, embossed on
>>every passing cloud, engraved on every granite rock, the inductive
>>evidence of God in the world would be no stronger than it is."
>>-Dr. E.A. Maness.
>>
>>"It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is
>>incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence - an
>>orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most
>>majestic statement ever uttered - 'In the beginning, God.'"
>>-Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics).
>
>
> Ahh I take back the credit I gave you for proper attribution of your
> mined quotes. Reverted to form I see.
>
> You are a silly silly person.
I really can't see how these few quoted words get so few worked up so much.
Only someone with a deeply felt belief would get so offended.
>
Grendel
> in article hb0ne.26074$on1.2760@clgrps13, Grendel at na...@trynot.com wrote
> on 5/31/05 12:22 PM:
>
>
>>Chris Thompson wrote:
>>
>>>Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Zs_me.25774$9A2.23134@edtnps89:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>catshark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 31 May 2005 04:37:48 +0000 (UTC), Gary Bohn
>>>>><gary...@REMOVETHISaccesscomm.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I have taken a quick look around but have failed to find the theory
>>>>>>actually written down. Is there a coherent concise form of the theory
>>>>>>and has anybody seen it. If so show me the way. Please, please,
>>>>>>please (In my best James Brown voice).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't bogart that joint my friend.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Colin Patterson, in his _Evolution_, 2nd ed. defines neo-Darwinian
>>>>>theory in 6 propositions:
>>>>
>>>>What he said here sums it up very nicely.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel, stop right there.
>>>
>>>Look down.
>>>
>>>See that? That's a land mine, and you're about to step on it.
>>
>>No, see, quotes that make evolution look bad are a "good thing"
>>Apologies to MS.
>>
>>
>>>the Quote-Mine Project?
>>
>>Ooooohh.....aaahaahhhh, well why didn't someone tell me that a man of
>>your credentials was here? Perhaps you could remind me why I should
>>can assure you it's nothing personal.
>>
>
>
> evolution look silly, make you look like an immoral fool. For the quotes are
> usually engineered to leave out the details or contexts and make it appear
> that the writer is saying something he or she is not.
>
> As an example, one could assert that the Scriptures command fornication,
> saying, "Thou shalt ... commit adultery." (Exodus 20:14).
>
> And by putting forward these "quotes" which have been demonstrated time and
> again to be corrupted and false, you participate in the lies. Are you a
> Christian, Jist? Where do liars go? Why in heaven or earth would you believe
> God wants you to spread a lie in order to defend what you think is the
> truth?
>
> Such behavior shows the poverty of your faith, the impotence of your
> salvation, and the depth of your neglect of the very Scripture you claim to
> defend.
>
> But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
> your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning to
> "repent" the day before you die?
Thanks for the exhortation brother.
1 John 3:10-12
10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
loveth not his brother.
11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
should love one another.
12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
brother's righteous.
jist
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
Grendel
Thank-you, I will take your words under consideration brother.
John 13:34-36
34A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I
have loved you, that ye also love one another.
35By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love one to another.
36Simon Peter said unto him, Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus
answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt
follow me afterwards.
jist
>
> Regards,
>
> Raymond E. Griffith
>
VoiceOfReason
> I hear somethin' sayin'
>
> (hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
> (hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
>
> (Well, don't you know)
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
>
> All day long they're singin'
> (hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
> (hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
>
> (Well, don't you know)
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
>
> All day long they type so hard
> To remove every context
> Working on ev'ry journal and text
> And wearing, wearing 'em down
> You hear them typin' their lives away
> Then you hear somebody sa-ay
>
> (hooh! aah!) (hooh! aah!)
>
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
>
> Can't ya hear them typin'
> Mm, I'm goin' home one of these years
> Ain't gonna do no more hypin'
> No more lies in a body's ear
> But meanwhile I got to work right he-ere
>
> (Well, don't you know)
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mi-i-ine
> That's the sound of the men working in the quote mine
>
> All day long they're singin', mm
> My, my, my, my, my, my, my, my, my work is so hard
> Give me truth, I'm thirsty!
>
>
> With apologies to Sam Cook
Chris Thompson
[snip silly drivel]
Very cute little tricksy Grendel. Consider yourself patted on the head.
Yes, abruptly changing tone from heckling troll to pseudo-reasonable
debater is a time-honored trick. Too bad so many regulars around here
have seen it so many times.
People were doing it better than you before you were a wet spot.
Come back when you're a grown-up.
--
Chris
aa#2186
Dana Tweedy
"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
sniipping
>>
>> But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
>> your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
>> to
>> "repent" the day before you die?
>
> Thanks for the exhortation brother.
>
> 1 John 3:10-12
> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
> devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
> loveth not his brother.
Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>
> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
> should love one another.
Grendel shows he loves no one.
>
> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
> wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
> brother's righteous.
Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
DJT
VoiceOfReason
Grendel wrote:
> VoiceOfReason wrote:
> > Grendel wrote:
> >
> > <snip quote-mining>
> >
> > If all you have is standard out-of-context quote mining, please don't
> > waste otherwise useful bandwidth.
> >
>
> Keep the faith VOR...keep the faith.
I always do. If you had some, you'd stop trashing Evilution and try
learning something.
Augray
news:<0rmne.26075$wr.14922@clgrps12>:
Why do you think he's pointing out the error of your ways to you?
Grendel
> Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in news:Y7mne.20656$HI.1775@edtnps84:
>
> [snip silly drivel]
>
> Very cute little tricksy Grendel. Consider yourself patted on the head.
> Yes, abruptly changing tone from heckling troll to pseudo-reasonable
> debater is a time-honored trick.
Then it seems you have the starting advantage, you should be well prepared.
>Too bad so many regulars around here
> have seen it so many times.
Not sure why you would need to depend on others to defend your belief,
oh well, it is expected as I have rarely seen an evolutionist able to
stand on their own.
>
> People were doing it better than you before you were a wet spot.
>
> Come back when you're a grown-up.
<shrug> I'm certainly not the one running away.
>
Grendel
What do you think he is doing?
>
Augray
news:<USmne.20666$HI.3933@edtnps84>:
Actually, you are. I challenged you to a written debate on bird
evolution in
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c775fad7ae3081ed
and you ran away. No one was surprised.
Grendel
> "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
> sniipping
>
>
>>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
>>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
>>>to
>>>"repent" the day before you die?
>>
>>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
>>
>>1 John 3:10-12
>> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
>>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
>>loveth not his brother.
>
>
> Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
feminine name.
>
>
>> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
>>should love one another.
>
>
> Grendel shows he loves no one.
Dana secretly longs for true love.
>
>
>
>> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
>>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
>>brother's righteous.
>
>
> Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
>
>
> DJT
>
Augray
news:<Z5nne.20669$HI.10994@edtnps84>:
Pointing out the error of your ways.
Grendel
>
Why do you think he's pointing out the error of my ways to me?
Quid
Grendel wrote:
> The only backing required is using the same words the originator did.
> Any interpretation can only be credited to the reader.
"I have rarely seen an evolutionist able to stand on their own."
---Grendel
Grendel doesn't believe people who accept the theory of evolution are
capable of standing on their own apparently.
Augray
news:<Denne.26155$wr.7018@clgrps12>:
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> > news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
> > sniipping
> >
> >
> >>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
> >>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
> >>>to
> >>>"repent" the day before you die?
> >>
> >>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
> >>
> >>1 John 3:10-12
> >> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
> >>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
> >>loveth not his brother.
> >
> >
> > Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>
> There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
> feminine name.
And here Grendel demonstrates the bankruptcy of his position.
> >> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
> >>should love one another.
> >
> >
> > Grendel shows he loves no one.
>
> Dana secretly longs for true love.
Grendel projects.
> >> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
> >>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
> >>brother's righteous.
> >
> >
> > Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
>
> Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
Dana touches a nerve.
VoiceOfReason
Perhaps hoping you'll stop lying for Jesus and being a general
embarrassment to real Christians.
Augray
news:<FDnne.20678$HI.6821@edtnps84>:
John 13:34-36 comes to mind.
er...@swva.net
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
> > "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> > news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
> > sniipping
> >
> >
> >>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
> >>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
> >>>to
> >>>"repent" the day before you die?
> >>
> >>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
> >>
> >>1 John 3:10-12
> >> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
> >>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
> >>loveth not his brother.
> >
> >
> > Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>
> There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
> feminine name.
>
Here, Grendel (not his/her real name) shows ingratitude for Dana's
constructive criticism by meanly calling him names.
>
> >
> >
> >> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
> >>should love one another.
> >
> >
> > Grendel shows he loves no one.
>
> Dana secretly longs for true love.
>
Grendel (not his/her real name) goes into denial and changes the
subject.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
> >>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
> >>brother's righteous.
> >
> >
> > Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
>
> Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
>
Once again, Grendel (not his/her real name) "shoots the messenger"
because the message cuts too close to the bone.
Eric Root
Grendel
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:36:19 GMT, Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in
> news:<Denne.26155$wr.7018@clgrps12>:
>
>
>>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>>"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
>>>sniipping
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
>>>>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
>>>>>to
>>>>>"repent" the day before you die?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
>>>>
>>>>1 John 3:10-12
>>>> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
>>>>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
>>>>loveth not his brother.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>>
>>There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
>>feminine name.
>
>
> And here Grendel demonstrates the bankruptcy of his position.
And Augray doesn't get it.
>
>
>
>>>> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
>>>>should love one another.
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel shows he loves no one.
>>
>>Dana secretly longs for true love.
>
>
> Grendel projects.
Augray misses the point.
>
>
>
>>>> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
>>>>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
>>>>brother's righteous.
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
>>
>>Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
>
>
> Dana touches a nerve.
Over my dead body.
>
Grendel
Comes to mind! Have you read that recently or something?
Are you a Christian?
>
Dana Tweedy
snipping
>>
>> Dana touches a nerve.
>
> Over my dead body.
Hit way too close to home, eh?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>> "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
>> news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
>> sniipping
>>
>>
>>>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer
>>>>for
>>>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
>>>>to
>>>>"repent" the day before you die?
>>>
>>>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
>>>
>>>1 John 3:10-12
>>> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
>>>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
>>>loveth not his brother.
>>
>>
>> Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>
> There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
> feminine name.
More admission that Grendel is not of God.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
>>>should love one another.
>>
>>
>> Grendel shows he loves no one.
>
> Dana secretly longs for true love.
I married my true love 5 years ago.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
>>>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
>>>brother's righteous.
>>
>>
>> Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
>
> Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
Where am I projecting hostility, false or otherwise?
DJT
Augray
news:<W0one.20686$HI.5198@edtnps84>:
Considering that the verses are in my post, I'd say the answer is
obvious.
> Are you a Christian?
No. Does it matter?
Augray
news:<v%nne.20685$HI.1809@edtnps84>:
> Augray wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:36:19 GMT, Grendel <na...@trynot.com> wrote in
> > news:<Denne.26155$wr.7018@clgrps12>:
> >
> >>Dana Tweedy wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
> >>>sniipping
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer for
> >>>>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
> >>>>>to
> >>>>>"repent" the day before you die?
> >>>>
> >>>>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
> >>>>
> >>>>1 John 3:10-12
> >>>> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
> >>>>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
> >>>>loveth not his brother.
> >>>
> >>>Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
> >>
> >>There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
> >>feminine name.
> >
> > And here Grendel demonstrates the bankruptcy of his position.
>
> And Augray doesn't get it.
Yet Grendel can't explain what Dana's "feminine name" has to do with
Grendel's unrighteous behavior.
> >>>> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
> >>>>should love one another.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Grendel shows he loves no one.
> >>
> >>Dana secretly longs for true love.
> >
> > Grendel projects.
>
> Augray misses the point.
But Grendel can't say what the point is.
> >>>> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
> >>>>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
> >>>>brother's righteous.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
> >>
> >>Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
> >
> >
> > Dana touches a nerve.
>
> Over my dead body.
Augray touches a nerve.
Grendel
> "Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
> news:Denne.26155$wr.7018@clgrps12...
>
>>Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>
>>>"Grendel" <na...@trynot.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6pmne.26074$wr.8406@clgrps12...
>>>sniipping
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>But have a good day or days, Jist, while you can. For you will answer
>>>>>for
>>>>>your lies most assuredly when you stand before Him. Or are you planning
>>>>>to
>>>>>"repent" the day before you die?
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the exhortation brother.
>>>>
>>>>1 John 3:10-12
>>>> 10In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the
>>>>devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that
>>>>loveth not his brother.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here "Grendel" admits he's not "of God".
>>
>>There, "Dana" demonstrates his unresolved issues associated with a
>>feminine name.
>
>
> More admission that Grendel is not of God.
I never blamed you for anything Dana.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 11For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we
>>>>should love one another.
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel shows he loves no one.
>>
>>Dana secretly longs for true love.
>
>
> I married my true love 5 years ago.
Don't take it out on me.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 12Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And
>>>>wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his
>>>>brother's righteous.
>>>
>>>
>>>Grendel acknowleges his works are evil.
>>
>>Dana projects a false hostility while searching for real friendship.
>
>
> Where am I projecting hostility, false or otherwise?
Dana is in denial.
>
> DJT
>
Grendel
You could have heard it somewhere.
>
>
>
>>Are you a Christian?
>
>
> No. Does it matter?
I didn't think so. Yes, it does matter.
>