Humans can't have evlolved
Logos
determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
of adaptability.
3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
point.
I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
make it too hard to believe.
Bill Wayne
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
Which scientists?
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
According to the sources I've seen, primates have sweat glands.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Consequence of increased intellect. Also, saving others helps the
species survive. I've heard that certain animals would risk their lives
to protect the young of others.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Humans can reproduce much earlier than thirty. After we've reproduced
enough to carry on the species, it doesn't matter if we drive off a
cliff. Humanity isn't adapted to living so long, so our systems break
down.
Besides, why would God^H^H^H the Intelligent Designer *design* us this
way?
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
As noted above, those points aren't inconvenient.
Bill
_Arthur
Bill Wayne wrote:
> > 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
Back pain may or may not be relatted to the notion that, at no time
during its evolution, Man used to sit on a chair 8 hours a day. Think
about it.
Frank L
So, your Designer guided the process that resulted in poor back design
in humans?
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
>
>
--
Frank L
r norman
>There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
>1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
>appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
Try
Folk GE Jr, Semken HA Jr.
The evolution of sweat glands.
Int J Biometeorol. 1991 Nov;35(3):180-6.
Abstract: Mammals have two kinds of sweat glands, apocrine and
eccrine, which provide for thermal cooling. In this paper we describe
the distribution and characteristics of these glands in selected
mammals, especially primates, and reject the suggested development of
the eccrine gland from the apocrine gland during the Tertiary
geological period. The evidence strongly suggests that the two glands,
depending on the presence or absence of fur, have equal and similar
functions among mammals; apocrine glands are not primitive. However,
there is a unique and remarkable thermal eccrine system in humans; we
suggest that this system evolved in concert with bipedalism and a
smooth hairless skin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1778649&dopt=Abstract
Yes, humans have a very specialized system of sweat glands but they
are neither "magically appearing" nor is it true that the " building
blocks never existed". The human system is simply an adaptive
evolutionary development from a well-developed previously existing
system common to mammals.
Bobby Bryant
Your subject line suggested that you were going to tell us why humans
couldn't have evolved. Why did you offer the drivel above instead?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
bullpup
"Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote in message
news:logos-t6ednXr7N5LHl...@adelphia.com...
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Bullshit.
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who
they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
No, since helping strangers allows for new alliances, and therefore greater
chance of reproduction outside the group.
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do
I.
You know one now.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the
Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
The fact that back pain is relatively common argues agains any form of
competant "Intelligent Designer", and points to common descent from
quadropeds.
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at
some
> point.
Since your above "attributes that couldn't have evolved" actually did
evolve, as the evidence shows, your conclusion is wrong.
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this
just
> make it too hard to believe.
Then you didn't open your mind to anything. The only thing you opened your
mind to was "how to be willfully ignorant in one easy step" It sooo much
easier to dismiss something when you're pig ignorant, isn't it?
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Mark VandeWettering
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
So, the assertion is that because humans have bad backs, we must have
been designed by an all-powerful all-knowing all-benevolent creator?
Mark
dysfunction
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
Not only do primates have sweat glands, but many other animals even
further removed from us, including dogs.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
>
No, it's not, natural selection is just a little more complicated than
your feeble mind can grasp. Dawkins explains this quite nicely in The
Selfish Gene.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
>
This is evidence against design, not for it.
Jon G
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> make it too hard to believe.
Unfortunately, I'm starting to feel that this forum actually
"commissions" stupid statements like yours, so that it infuriates
everyone with a brain and we keep posting against it and the site gets
enough traffic to make the google ads shake with excitement.
It may sound cynical, but if this is a genuine post, please tell us the
references of the points you make and in what way the only possible
explanation would be a designer with an evil sense of humour.
Otherwise, I think we should not reply to your statement at all.
Is there someone in this forum who actually thinks that Intelligent
Design makes sense and would be prepared tell us his or her motivations?
Free Lunch
bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant) wrote in
<xpEKg.7905$q63...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>:
Because his subject line makes an erroneous statement and he has no
actual evidence to support his claims.
John Harshman
I'm going to assume for the moment that you're not just a Loki troll.
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
What is your source for the claim that humans are the only primates with
sweat glands? I don't believe you.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
What would you know about ethics? You have shown a decided lack in your
postings here.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Do you think it might have something to do with our recently having
adapted a horizontal support structure to a vertical position? It's
points like this, in which you argue against your supposed position
while claiming to argue for it, that make it hard to take you seriously.
If that is indeed your goal.
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
The designer produced our bad backs?
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
Try harder. Try thinking.
Ron O
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
This could be logos, or someone just as stupid and ignorant.
Primates and horses have sweat glands. Look it up on PubMed and you
will find papers researching monkey sweat glands.
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Birds pretending to have a broken wing to draw off predators from their
young, and a mother hen that will run out into the open and cover her
chicks when a hawk is above aren't altruistic behaviors? What about
wolf packs? What about musk ox where the herd will circle and protect
the young. Why do members of the herd do this even if they don't have
any young to protect? What has no relationship have to do with it?
Look at your ethics, is that anything to brag about?
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Uh, Logos you have a poorly designed back because of something called
descent with modification. Your not so long ago ancestor was a
quadraped and not a biped. Humans inherited a spine that had evolved
for hundreds of millions of years to service an animal that walked on
four legs. We have problems because nature jury rigged a good design
to do something that it hadn't had to do before. The bipedal adaptions
have only had a few million years to be selected for. People still
have fallen arches and bad backs because there is still a lot of room
for improvement, and natural selection hasn't had enough time to do its
job.
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
Why did the designer give us monkey sweat glands? Why do we have to
suffer with a spine designed for quadrapedal locomotion?
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
How many people have told you that you shouldn't have used dynamite to
try and open your mind, no matter how thick your skull was? Not only
that but it was as stupid as using a rat fart when a thermo nuclear
explosion wouldn't have done the job. Your three examples would be
funny if you weren't such an ethically challenged low life.
Ron Okimoto
dgen...@hotmail.com
Bill Wayne wrote:
> Logos wrote:
> > There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> > determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> > attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> Which scientists?
>
> > 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> > appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> > existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
> According to the sources I've seen, primates have sweat glands.
>
> > 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> > may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> > of adaptability.
>
> Consequence of increased intellect. Also, saving others helps the
> species survive. I've heard that certain animals would risk their lives
> to protect the young of others.
>
"Altruism" is a better word for said behavior than "ethics". The
conventional explanations for altruistic behavior are a bit more
complex than simply "helping the species survive", but do an adequate
job of explaining how altruistic behaviors can evolve in species which
live communally and have the intelligence to discern the recepients of
their altruism as good folks or scum bags.
Dawkins has written about this topic at length.
Dave
Ye Old One
group when s/he wrote:
>There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
>1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this.
Wrong.
> This is like the magically
>appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
>2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
>may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
>of adaptability.
Many other animals rick their lives for others.
>
>3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
Yes, many people.
> Neither do I.
>How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
>saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
>settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Our backs show we evolved.
>
>There are others,
Are there?
>but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
>the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
>necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
>point.
A designer would have done a far better job.
>
>I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
>make it too hard to believe.
>
The problem is that you do NOT try to open your mind.
--
Bob.
VoiceOfReason
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
All mammals have sweat glands.
http://www.answers.com/topic/sweat-gland
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Ants also risk their lives for the collective good. This is not at odds
with evolution.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
I've over 30 (by quite a bit). Neither I nor any of my friends have
back pain.
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
First, nothing you've said was correct. Second, even if it had been,
none of it would falsify human evolution.
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
In that case, you're a boob.
Klaus
I am well over 40, with no back problems whatsoever. Just don't ask
about my crappy sinuses ...
Klaus
dkomo
Well, I just read the replies (about 15) in this thread and it looks
like you've made a total ass of yourself once again. That leads me to
wonder, do you enjoy making an ass of yourself in public? Or is it
possible that you actually believe that you have effectively "witnessed"
against evolution and that vast apocryphal sea of lurkers reading your
post above will turn away from evolution because of it?
Dana Tweedy
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating
"Primates and horses have sweat glands in their skin, similar to humans."
We read:
" In primates they're found in the armpits and groin, but in other species
they may be located more widely"
At the site: http://faculty.une.edu/com/abell/histo/histolab3g.htm we
learn:
Eccrine sweat glands are widely distributed throughout the body of primates
and are most numerous on the palms of the hands and soles of the feet"
since your first "example" is obviously false, why should we accept anything
you say?
snip the rest
DJT
Cubist
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
[snipping to get to the interesting bit]
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
Wow.
According to Logos, "[p]oor back design" is one of those
"attributes" which are, somehow or other, "essential for survival".
Just... wow.
Ross Langerak
No, you are not being open-minded. To be open-minded means that you are
willing to consider the possibility that you are wrong. Instead, you have
ignored evidence and arguments, and presented easily refuted statements like
the ones above. Rather than check your facts, you present arguments that
you expect to be correct based upon your preconceived notion of creation.
Have you ever thought, "Gee, I might be wrong, so I'd better check my
facts"? If you were really open-minded, that would be the first question
you asked before writing each post.
Bob Pease
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:xpEKg.7905$q63...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Dago Red costs seven dollars a gallon
It acts quicky if taken before breakfast
RJ P
Dale
news:1157305818.2...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Logos wrote:
> > There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> > determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> > attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
> >
> > I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this
just
> > make it too hard to believe.
>
> Unfortunately, I'm starting to feel that this forum actually
> "commissions" stupid statements like yours, so that it infuriates
> everyone with a brain and we keep posting against it and the site gets
> enough traffic to make the google ads shake with excitement.
Google ads? I don't see any Google ads in Outlook or Thunderbird.
Dale
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
This is just too easy. All animals have skin glands which excrete stuff to
keep their skin and fur healthy.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who
they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Yeah, right, everbody except Noah.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do
I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the
Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
You don't see many of those guys on the Serengeti because they usually die
shortly after they start complaining about whatever wildebeests and cheetahs
complain about in their old age. Meanwhile, during their lifetime they've
already sired or borne several to several dozen offspring, which is the only
thing that matters to evolution.
Dale
news:1157307897....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
[...]
> Ants also risk their lives for the collective good. This is not at odds
> with evolution.
Oh, good catch. Not only that, but the vast majority of individual ant never
even have the chance to have offspring.
Cheezits
[etc.]
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
Listen Grandpa, Mother Nature never meant for us to live much past 30 in
the first place. We're probably not supposed to be shovelling snow or
lifting refrigerators either.
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
r norman
wrote:
>"Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote in message
>news:logos-t6ednXr7N5LHl...@adelphia.com...
>> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>>
>> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
>> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
>This is just too easy. All animals have skin glands which excrete stuff to
>keep their skin and fur healthy.
>
I don't think you mean *all* animals. Just an awful lot of them
(us).
Kleuskes & Moos
Klaus schreef:
Same here. What about your crappy sinuses?
Kleuskes & Moos
Jon G schreef:
<evil grin>
Well, if design doesn't make sense, it's obviously not intelligent.
</evil grin>
Jon G
> > Unfortunately, I'm starting to feel that this forum actually
> > "commissions" stupid statements like yours, so that it infuriates
> > everyone with a brain and we keep posting against it and the site gets
> > enough traffic to make the google ads shake with excitement.
>
> Google ads? I don't see any Google ads in Outlook or Thunderbird.
Fair point! I think I should do that too.
CreateThis
>I tried opening my mind to evolution, but my brain fell out.
If you don't call attention to it, nobody will notice.
CT
Bobby Bryant
Can they be associated with a clade?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Bobby Bryant
Cheezits <Cheez...@hotmail.com> writes:
> "Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
>> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
>
> Listen Grandpa, Mother Nature never meant for us to live much past
> 30 in the first place. We're probably not supposed to be shovelling
> snow or lifting refrigerators either.
Surely competence at honey-do's was an important factor in sexual
selection far back in our lineage!
r norman
wrote:
Well, if you count mucus secretion by earthworms and slugs and frogs,
I doubt it.
VoiceOfReason
I'm well over 40 too, and it wasn't until my 40's that my gall bladder
went belly-up, so to speak. Of course, in true natural selective
fashion, I had already reproduced. Before modern medicine, the problem
would have killed me.
Dale
news:jffmf2dofemna0rpb...@4ax.com...
Oh, right. All mammals and amphibians?
Desertphile
Cheezits wrote:
> "Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
> > 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
I'm over 30 and my back is without pain. (Sheeeish!)
> Listen Grandpa, Mother Nature never meant for us to live much past 30 in
> the first place. We're probably not supposed to be shovelling snow or
> lifting refrigerators either.
Or using an axe to split fire wood all winter. If the Creationists gods
had meant us humans to live in the Carson National Forest at 8,000 feet
all winter, why didn't they let us keep all of our fur?
Scooter the Mighty
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
This isn't true.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
You can make up evolutionary explainations for this, but I don't think
you really need one. It can be a concious choice, not a innate reflex.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
I'm 42 and I don't have any back pain and never have. But this is more
of an argument against intelligent design than evolution. Why would
God have designed our backs poorly? Evolution, on the other hand,
would explain why our "design" is a modification of a quadraped design.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Not many. I guess they're well evolved.
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution.
Only if you're an idiot.
B Richardson
>
> Logos wrote:
>> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>>
>> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
>> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
> This isn't true.
>
And the other primates don't use deoderant.
>
>> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
>> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
>> of adaptability.
>
> You can make up evolutionary explainations for this, but I don't think
> you really need one. It can be a concious choice, not a innate reflex.
>
Harter posted an essay on altrusim in 1997. Or maybe it was 1897,
there is only the year and no century in the URL.
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar97.html
Googleing for Harter and Altruism turns up a couple of other
posts worth a read.
Did you used to be a cat in a former life?
[snip]
Dick C
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do
> I. How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the
> Serenghetti saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I
> think I'll just settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
For the lurkers, evolution does not create perfection, nor does it create
all new organs from nothing. It only utilizes what is already there,
modified by mutations that allow for increased utility in a different
environment. And means that what works fine for some animals is often
times somewhat problematic in others. Things like our backs. Hundreds
of millions of years of the back being adapted to being a horizontal
support for quadrupeds means that it is not the best possible support
for a bipedal creature.
Things like this do not have to work perfectly, they only have to work
better than other available modifications.
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not
> be the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and
> not necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process
> at some point.
Right, so you are saying that the Designer is an incompetent bozo who can
do no better than what mutation and selection could do.
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this
> just make it too hard to believe.
>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Thurisaz the Einherjer
claims out there, don't you?
Anyway, thanks for doing our work again. Gee, winning a war is so easy if
your enemy keeps committing suicide in front of your very eyes...
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Kermit
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Untrue, as others have explained.
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
If I save the life of a member of the tribe, or help him thrive by
generosity, he or she undoubtedly has many of my genes and will pass
them on. Altruisitic behavior makes my genes *more likely to endure.
And if I survive my heroism, I am more likely to reproduce. Babes love
a hero (and guys, heroines).
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Gee, we usually use this as an argument *against design. All body plans
have weak points, and it's usually because of adapting a structure that
had a previous use. However, while there are occasional congenital bad
backs, most are the result of accident or chronic couch potatoism. I'm
55, and my back is fine. I spent two hours this morning digging in the
garden, and just now finished a shower after a 60-minute workout in the
back yard doing staff forms and slapping the wooden dummy around.
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution.
Actually, the evidence points to this and nothing else that anyone has
been able to think of. This is why most theists accept evolutionary
science as the best explanation for how their gods do things.
> A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
A designer designed you to lie? Or are you talking about bad backs?
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
Right. The most inconvenient fact of all being that you are unimportant
and pig ignorant, to boot. The latter, at least, is fixable.
Kermit
Adam Grinter
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do
> I.
I'll be 50 soon. Never had any back pain, and I'm no overweight, too.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Well, this is interesting. Mammary glands are modified sweat glands.
Their ancestry is obvious to anyone except Logos (and probably
Nashipoo). So even if no other Primate has "sweat" glands, they still
have sweat glands, in the form of tits. Hey Logos I wrote TITS!!!!!!
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
And dolphins have risked their lives to save humans. Your point?
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
I am almost 50, terribly overweight, and I have no back pains. As a
matter of fact, I had back pain when I was younger, but now I life
things properly and do some exercises, and I got better.
> There are others,
Well, no there aren't.
> but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
Give us some positive evidence, not half-baked nonexistent issues with
evolution. You know nothing of anatomy nor ethology so put up or shut
up.
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
Inconvenient, maybe, but facts nonetheless.
Chris
Adam Grinter
"Adam Grinter" <agri...@rpk.com.au> wrote in message
news:44fbcb77$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Oops. Delete the "no".
Robert Carnegie
Jon G wrote:
> Logos wrote:
> > There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> > determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> > attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
> >
> > make it too hard to believe.
>
> "commissions" stupid statements like yours, so that it infuriates
> everyone with a brain and we keep posting against it and the site gets
> enough traffic to make the google ads shake with excitement.
Heh, you got us. Everyone here takes turns to write as "Logos". Me
next week, and what worries me most is maintaining the correct level of
creative misspelling.
Robert Carnegie
>
> Many other animals rick their lives for others.
But I don't know how many would rick their back for someone else.
Something happened at the weekend in that department to make me like my
nifty Strida folding bicycle very slightly less than I did before. But
it's probably me. (And I wasn't using it very altruistically, except
in that it isn't so mean to the planet as an SUV.)
And I'm 40.
Robert Carnegie
> Your subject line suggested that you were going to tell us why humans
> couldn't have evolved. Why did you offer the drivel above instead?
Actually, he said that humans can't have evlolved. I think he may be
right because there's no such word.
(Google)
Okay, actually there is. But I don't know what it means.
There are people online saying "Humans evlolved from apes" - maybe it
means "to relocate out of an area because you don't care for the
neighbours". So, gated communities are the most evlolved, and Black
housing projects... do you think this line of argument is a mistake???
Iain
Logos wrote:
<snip>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Many mammals have sweat glands.
You don't care, though. You're not going to let a little thing like
obvious common knowledge slow an avalanche of horseshit.
~Iain
Iain
<snip>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain?
This is an interesting case of Orwellian doublethink:
Using bad design to argue for a designer, after having used good design
to argue for a designer.
~Iain
Dick
>There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
>1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
>appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
>2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
>may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
>of adaptability.
>
>3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
>How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
>saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
>settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
>
>There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
>the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
>necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
>point.
>
>I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
>make it too hard to believe.
>
I hope you anticipated the "dog pile" this post will receive.
I too believe there are reasons to ask questions about our existence.
I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
dick
Ron O
Actually read the responses. You are a day late and a dollar short
again. What did trying to use the scam junk from the IDiots do for
you. Look up Logos using something like Google groups. It won't take
you very long to realize that the guy has the ethics of a shrimp or he
is a pro science troll acting like a brain dead creationists.
Ignorance is bliss, but actually learning something seems to be a
pretty painful process for you.
Ron Okimoto
Baron Bodissey
<snip>
> It won't take
> you very long to realize that the guy has the ethics of a shrimp
Unfiair to shrimp!
Baron Bodissey
My mind is a scary place.
- The Tick
Desertphile
> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
Robert Carnegie
>
> I too believe there are reasons to ask questions about our existence.
>
> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
As has been pointed out, Logos is a creationist (although, as I've
already confessed, a team of evolutionists take turns to write "him" -
but there I'm only joking). He likes to write little allegorical plays
where he, imaginary family members, and neighbours act out scenes that
reveal the Literal Truth of the Bible, and how evolutionists are sworn
to the service of Satan.
But never mind him. Those Attached to Natural Evolution here are
fairly tired of "other possibilities" since usually they are only
someone's crazy idea with no evidence whatsoever, the someone in
question turning out to be, if you gently scrape away a little of the
topmost paint job, creationist-coloured. Still, a constructive idea
can make for something different to discuss, anyway.
stew dean
Logos wrote:
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Nope. Chimps and other apes have sweat glands.
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
No, it's social behavour with is very useful for survival. Ethics come
out of learning how best to act cooperatively.
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
I'm over 30 and have no back pain. So much for that one.
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution.
As you havnt actualy got anything right here I think it's safe to say
you're wrong.
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
Try opening a browser and test you 'facts' before you post them. Two
seconds with google brings up chimp sweat glands.
Stew Dean
Dick
I read what he wrote and found I had similar views. Why should I
investigate what he has said before? I just think different than you
do about how to respond.
What did I say that caused you to criticize me? Your response
suggests you are just looking for anything that you can pounce on.
I did note some specific responses to his list and took note, but the
dog piling I object to is the meaningless name calling and short one
lingers. What does "ethics of a shrimp" have to do with anything?
dick
Ron O
You forgot to mention that all three of his points were bogus.
Monkeys have sweat glands. Mammary glands are modified sweat glands,
just look it up. What do you think that says about mammals in general
and sweat glands?
Altruism isn't limited to humans, and logos has the ethics of a snake,
so what does that tell you about his point number two?
The back is a poor design because of something called descent with
modification. Primates have only develop bipedalism in the last few
million years. For hundreds of millions of years our ancestors were
quadrapeds. Our spines were designed for quadrapedal locomotion.
Adaptation to a bipedal gate is a recent evolutionary innovation and
all the bugs aren't worked out yet. That is the problem with evolution
it is stuck building on what came before. Some supernatural designer
didn't have to do it that way, so why is it that way? His last point
is about as bad as any that logos has ever come up with. Why would a
designer produce a faulty design on purpose? Was it a mistake? Why
would a designer use a quadrapedal skeleton to make a biped? Was the
designer just lazy or was an evolutionary mechanism used?
Why do you find the things bogus guys like Logos says of any value at
all? Do you ever want to check any of these things out. Just look up
sweat glands and educate yourself just a bit. Why is that so hard?
Ron Okimoto
Lokana Skydancer
I agree with this! I am an agnostic and former "born again" Christian,
with many "born again" Christian relatives who constantly try to
convince me that "Young Earth Creationism" is true. I usually don't
know enough about science or evolution to refute them, so I started
reading this website.
Over many years, I have heard hundreds of Creationist arguments. I've
found that the vast majority of them are utterly absurd (such as my
nephew's argument that there is a canyon that was carved by the lava
from the eruption of Mount St. Helens that's almost as big as the Black
Canyon in Colorado which proves that canyons such as the Grand Canyon
can be created in a very short period of time). The vast remainder of
the arguments have been thoroughly and completely disproven and the very
few that are left are badly mis-represented. For example,
calculations that purport to "prove" that the statistical probability of
evolution makes it impossible, when the reality is that there is no way
we have the technology or knowledge necessary to make such calculations.
The best that such calculations can prove is that there's enough
uncertainty about some aspects of evolution, and especially abiogenesis,
that it leaves enough wiggle room that you can believe in theistic
evolution ( NOT YEC! ) if that's what you want to believe.
Statements that evolution is proved wrong are so disgusting to me at
this point that I have very little tolerance left for listening to yet
another ridiculous argument to support willful stupidity and closed
mindedness.
I can completely understand why some of the more knowledgeable people on
this newsgroup get really testy about these absurd posts.
Tiny Bulcher
Dana Tweedy wrote:
> "Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote in message
> news:logos-t6ednXr7N5LHl...@adelphia.com...
> > determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> > attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
> >
> > 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> > appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> > existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>
>
> "Primates and horses have sweat glands in their skin, similar to humans."
Men perspire and horses sweat, but ladies merely glow.
--
Tiny, gent.
Dick
I didn't say lots of things.
dick
Dick
wrote:
I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
there might not be design/designer/s.
Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
There are about 400 posts to this group each day. I haven't counted,
but I suspect half are rants and even those that contain information
are expressed with arrogance.
Dog piles prove nothing. Truth is not subject to poling.
dick
Dick
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
I have read one of Logos stories. I found it objectionable, but did
not respond as there was nothing to discuss appropriate to T.O.
No response seems to me a better response than rants. If my policy
were followed, there would be fewer posts to sort through meaning
those that were posted more likely to be read.
I vote for 'quality' over 'quantity'.
I do agree that out of stuff I don't agree with there may be
"constructive" ideas. It was this notion that led me to respond to
Logos. I keep hoping that T.O. could open itself to ideas and ignore
dogmas.
dick
moxm...@gmail.com
3 is far more damaging to any kind of ID then it is to evolution. I
hardly see the intelligence in designing such a flawed spine/back.
Dick
But, are you saying the practice of "dog piling" is justified?
I have the opinion some people are not expressing honest opinions, but
are looking to provoke responses. Troll behavior, no? I waited out
about 3 months of troll behavior of 4 groups I visit daily. One by
one the regulars left. I and one other regular hung on, only
responding to legitimate questions/comments. The trolls gave up, no
more fun for them.
dick
Inez
> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
Since I began to read this group regularly this sort of statement has
started to bother me. How in the world would you know whether this is
true or not? What other possibilities do you want to discuss? You say
this as if you are the reasonable voice of moderation calling sadly
into a room full of people who will not listen to you. And yet, as
always, you leave out any details on other possibilities that you think
deserve discussion.
All the anti-evolution crowd wants to do is raise vague questions, they
don't want to discuss other possibilities.
chris.li...@gmail.com
Dick wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:10:36 -0700, "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> >> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
> >
> >*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
>
> I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
>
> Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
> there might not be design/designer/s.
>
> Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
There might also be unicorns, spirits moving through the ether, a lost
continent of Atlantis, pixies, elves, faerie, whole kingdoms under
hillsides you can only enter on certain days, dragons, and giant space
goats.
But no one's ever seen those, just like no one's ever seen evidence for
a designer.
When you get some evidence, or even a method for testing for the
existence of evidence, then it can be discussed. Until then, unlike the
theory of evolution, it's just personal belief.
Chris
Inez
Dick wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:10:36 -0700, "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> >> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
> >
> >*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
>
> I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
>
> Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
> there might not be design/designer/s.
>
> Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
You can't prove there isn't an elf standing behind making faces who
disappears the instant you turn around. Why deny that possibility?
The reason to deny that possibility is because there's not much use in
accepting the possibility of things for which there is no evidence.
Sure, they might be true, and speculation that magic might be happening
just out of sight can be fun. But when you boil it all down such
speculation can't be anything more than daydreaming unless you have
some sort of evidence.
So presumably you have evidence for your other possibilities, right?
So let's discuss them.
>
> There are about 400 posts to this group each day. I haven't counted,
> but I suspect half are rants and even those that contain information
> are expressed with arrogance.
Oh no! Not rants and arrogance! How awful!
> Dog piles prove nothing. Truth is not subject to poling.
The piles of dogs accumlate because the evolutionists are so numerous
on this group. While repeating an argument doesn't make it more true,
neither does it make it less true. A dog pile of people who all have
good points does actually prove something, and if you look at the
replies you'll see Logos' issues answered.
Inez
Not so much justified as inevitable. Why is this a big deal?
> I have the opinion some people are not expressing honest opinions, but
> are looking to provoke responses. Troll behavior, no? I waited out
> about 3 months of troll behavior of 4 groups I visit daily. One by
> one the regulars left. I and one other regular hung on, only
> responding to legitimate questions/comments. The trolls gave up, no
> more fun for them.
As I understand it, this group is a troll dumping ground, which exists
primarily to draw trolls away from more serious science groups.
Robert Carnegie
Logos posts to tease and to bait, for sure. There is always a danger
that he is the first post that someone sees here, and so those who
disagree with him always wish to make a reasoned response.
Multiple rebuttals that often say the same thing are a different
matter. I don't like it. Sure, to begin with, none of us sees what
someone else has written until we run a send-and-receive, but then it
keeps going. I only pitch in, I hope, when I have something worth
adding.
I also regret that so many people all spend time corresponding with
Logos when they would be more usefully and less redundantly employed in
promoting understanding of science elsewhere. We should have a Logos
Rebuttal Rota. Well, it seems that everyone playing with Logos is more
fun - but.... The way I see it, when a troll spends less time playing
the game than the victims do, the troll won. I've seen this done very
well, by one who admitted keeping score that way. One writer would
string along a correspondent with innocently bone-headed but
reasonable-sounding argument, then descend to foul language and
innuendo, and either leave the other vainly trying to resume a civil
conversation, or else drag them down to the gutter with him.
In my own interactions in that forum, I've had to remember that I don't
keep score on the same scale that troll-guy uses.
Robert Carnegie
Perhaps you would like to buy this attractive stopped clock. I think
you'll appreciate its accuracy.
CreateThis
wrote:
>On 4 Sep 2006 13:10:36 -0700, "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Dick wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
>>> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
>>
>>*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
>
>I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
>
>Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
>there might not be design/designer/s.
>
>Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
What "possibilities" were denied in this thread? Logos, a known
troll, asserted a few of the usual untruths that creationist trolls
assert repeatedly: things we *know* are untrue. He does this despite
being corrected repeatedly, and doesn't deserve any politeness for his
trolling - as you'd know with a minimum of looking into it. But then
looking into it would be like being interested in the facts, and we
know that you're only interested in being contrarian.
I'm willing to bet that you won't change your ways either after being
repeatedly corrected - you're only here to wrongly accuse others of
what you yourself do, exactly like any antievolutionist puppet on a
string. If you don't like the tone people take with dishonest
antievolutionists, don't be one.
CT
UC
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable,
...'adaptive', perhaps?
> or could not have evolved.
Yes, Heavy Metal music could not have evolved naturally. Someone had to
create it.
> Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this.
...'them'
>This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Sweat glands are modified follicles...
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Small groups...
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Our distant ancestors usually did not live past 25 in the old days..
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
...and did a poor job of it!
Desertphile
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:10:36 -0700, "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> >> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
> >
> >*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
> I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
No, not at all. Talk.origins has been intelligently designed for such
thoughts to be shared.
> Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
> there might not be design/designer/s.
"Let's postulate?" You said "possibilities," not "postulations." I am
unaware of any "other possibilities" that explain the observed
biosphere than "natural evolution." One may "postulate"
thousand-foot-tall elves in pink tutus coming to Earth on invisible
dragons to make life, but a postulation is in no way a "possibility."
> Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
Maxwell's four equations are not proven; the inability of reindeer to
fly is not proven; Luna being made of rock is not proven; Earth being
solid instead of hollow is not proven; the existance of atoms is not
proven.
Evolution is a fact, and evolutionary theory, which defines and
explains and makes predictions about that fact, is as close to being
proven as all of the above.
> There are about 400 posts to this group each day. I haven't counted,
> but I suspect half are rants and even those that contain information
> are expressed with arrogance.
"Rants?" So all of the people who correct your mistakes are "ranting?"
> Dog piles prove nothing. Truth is not subject to poling.
Fuck "truth." The issue is facts and evidence: "truth" does not apply.
If you have any "other possibilities," by all means be the first on the
planet to share them with the rest of the world.
Kermit
Dick wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2006 13:10:36 -0700, "Desertphile" <deser...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Dick wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I fear that those attached to Natural Evolution are to wrapped into
> >> their fight with Creationists to discuss other possibilities.
> >
> >*WHAT* "other possibilities?"
>
> I would think you would be tired of my thoughts by now, Desertphile.
>
> Foremost, let's postulate there might be design/designer/s furthermore
> there might not be design/designer/s.
>
> Since neither position can be proven, why deny the possibilities?
Oh, we can't. But we can deny that there is any evidence for them, and
therefore we must deny that this is a fit subject for science. Theistic
evolutionists - if we're talking about scientists - generally do not
try to conflate their religious beliefs with scientific models.
When you come up with evidence that we can confirm, then it will be a
fit subject for scientific investigation.
You cannot, need I remind you, deny the possibility of last
Thursdayism, a Matrix virtual reality, or a brain in a tank scenario.
But to what end?
If your religious path gives you solace, more power to you. But don't
expect it to be given the same response as a testable model.
>
> There are about 400 posts to this group each day. I haven't counted,
> but I suspect half are rants and even those that contain information
> are expressed with arrogance.
>
> Dog piles prove nothing. Truth is not subject to poling.
Absolutely correct. But patience is sometimes limited.
>
>
> dick
Kermit
Desertphile
VoiceOfReason
Desertphile wrote:
> This seems to hammer the head of the nail precisely.
Mini-seconded.
Kleuskes & Moos
VoiceOfReason schreef:
I propose to deminify it, since size is not an criterion.
Inez
Desertphile wrote:
> This seems to hammer the head of the nail precisely.
>
possibilities to be discussed, where are they?
Shane
"Firstly I don't sweat, I perspire; secondly, I don't perspire."
Charles Emerson Winchester III
Ernest Major
<remd...@sbcglobal.net> writes
You do realise that's an accurate description of Logos's posts. You
wouldn't be joining the dog pile, would you?
>about 3 months of troll behavior of 4 groups I visit daily. One by
>one the regulars left. I and one other regular hung on, only
>responding to legitimate questions/comments. The trolls gave up, no
>more fun for them.
>
>dick
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Desertphile
Yeah, right. Try explaining that to all of my dates.....
John Wilkins
Please tell me Chas didn't say "firstly"...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Shane
> Shane <remarcs...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>
>> On 5 Sep 2006 05:08:52 -0700, Tiny Bulcher wrote:
>>
>>> Dana Tweedy wrote:
>>>> "Logos" <a...@asd.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:logos-t6ednXr7N5LHl...@adelphia.com...
>>>>> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
>>>>> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
>>>>> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
>>>>> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
>>>>> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweating
>>>>
>>>> "Primates and horses have sweat glands in their skin, similar to humans."
>>>
>>> Men perspire and horses sweat, but ladies merely glow.
>>
>> "Firstly I don't sweat, I perspire; secondly, I don't perspire."
>> Charles Emerson Winchester III
>
> Please tell me Chas didn't say "firstly"...
He probably didn't, this is from memory of 20 something years ago.
Iain
They do want to make assertations also, but don't care *how* they
reason. I gave my thoughts on this in this thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/ad7b86056bec29d/4881da6085b9d906?tvc=2&q=iain_inkster+%22creationist+and+explanation%22#4881da6085b9d906
~Iain
Andrew
> There are several attributes of the human being that scientists have
> determined are not adaptable, or could not have evolved. Yet these very
> attributes are essential for survival. Here are just a few:
>
> 1. Sweat glands - no other primate has this. This is like the magically
> appearing flagellum in microorganisms - if the building blocks never
> existed, how can the ultimate result ever come about in the first place?
Granted, zoology isn't my specialty, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a
mammal that *doesn't* have sweat glands.
>
> 2. Ethics - Humans risk their lives and livliehoods to save others who they
> may have no relation to at all. Such a trait in fact is the very opposite
> of adaptability.
Um, nope. Actually altruism is relatively common in the animal
kingdom; take ants, for example; or bees. They routinely give up their
lives or reproductive function in order to make sure that others
survive.
>
> 3. Poor back design - Know anyone over 30 without back pain? Neither do I.
> How many wildebeests and cheetahs do you see hobbling around the Serenghetti
> saying to themsleves "Oi, I'm getting to old for this, I think I'll just
> settle for some oatmeal." (LOL!)
Okay, what? You're arguing *for* design by claiming that the designer
was incompetent when he put together the human backbone?
>
> There are others, but it becomes plainly evident that humans could not be
> the product of naturalistic, Darwinistic evolution. A Designer (and not
> necessarily a Divine or anthropogenic one) had to guide the process at some
> point.
>
> I tried opening my mind to evolution, but inconveniant facts like this just
> make it too hard to believe.
Only for very liberal definitions of the word "fact."
--Drew