Re: The Microevolution Challenge
Arkalen
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
>
> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> Ray
>
>
I think you forgot to tell us what the challenge is.
Frank J
I challenge any "evolutionist" *or* anti-evolutionist to translate
what you wrote.
Did you mean to wrire "microevolutionary" in #1?
Is this supposed to be a challenge to *anti-evolutionists* who accept
"micro" but not "macro"?
Randy C
> > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
> > Ray
> I challenge any "evolutionist" *or* anti-evolutionist to translate
> what you wrote.
I can hardly wait for the book...
John Harshman
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
>
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
Your definitions are all poorly stated, but I believe I get the drift.
It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
the way) is impossible to satisfy.
Dana Tweedy
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
That's not how the term is defined by any scientist, or by any sane
person. Of course, you need to state what you'd accept as an
unguided/unintelligent process. It's easily demonstrated that
"slight changes" happen within species, but if you automatically
reject those changes because you claim they aren't "unguided/
unintelligent", your "challenge" is pointless.
Would you accept that any genetic changes seen in a population that
were not deliberately produced by human genetic manipulation are
"unguided/unintelligent" until proven otherwise ?
>
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
Can you please make up your mind. Do you want it within species, or
speciation?
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
What are you calling "Darwinian modification"? Modifications in the
genetic make up of a population are the result of mutations. Darwin
didn't know about mutations, or genetics. Darwin knew that
variations in populations were subject to selection over generations
but didn't know the basis for the variations. It's now known that
variations are ultimately the result of mutations.
Genetic drift, where genetic changes take place in absence of
selection, is an important mechanism of evolution, even if Darwin
didn't know about it. Why are you leaving out mechanisms that Darwin
himself wasn't aware of?
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
Here you are assuming your conclusion. Species are not "Paley's
Watches", as a watch was Paley's metaphor for nature. He didn't
specifiy that each species was an individually created object.
Also, Mayr's BSC (which you obviously don't understand) applies to all
sexually reproducing organisms, not just to animals. Previously
you've tried to claim that plants don't count. Are you abandoning
that arbitrary distinction?
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
The problem with this "definition" is that all human guided changes
would qualify as "unguided/unintelligent". If you can show any
evidence that there is any other processes that have ever been
observed that don't originate from animate/inanimate material
environment, then perhaps you'd have some reason to make such an
distinction.
>
> Because I am very busy writing a book,
Haw Haw. right, Ray, good one......
> my time here is limited.
I.e. Ray retains the right to run away should things get too
difficult......
> If
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
Or, more correctly, because Ray is running away from the response.
DJT
Nathan Levesque
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
That would just be evolution. I'd be hard pressed to fine a non-
slight change.
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
>
> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> Ray
Mike Dworetsky
It will be a real challenge to any editor, that's for sure.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Steven L.
news:7000021f-7f7e-4dee...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
>
> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
What exactly are you asking us for? To cite an example?
I still like this example:
1940: Penicillin goes into mass production and widescale use.
Virtually all staph infections can be cured with a single penicillin
shot--as long as they aren't too far advanced.
1946: Time magazine reports on the advent of penicillin resistant
strains of staph infecting patients.
1960s: Methicillin, and flucloxacillin, new generations of penicillin
which still work on most staph, go into widespread use.
1970: MRSA (methicillin-resistant and flucloxacillin-resistant staph
strains) appears.
1990: 90% of staph strains are now resistant to penicillin. The
first-line treatment for MRSA is vancomycin.
1996: Vancomcyin-resistant MRSA (VRSA) appears.
All in a single human lifetime.
A Darwinian explanation of this is obvious.
What's your explanation of this, Ray?
-- Steven L.
Frank J
I'll wait for the movie. Gotta be more entertaining than "Expelled."
Frank J
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
None of those qualify as "microevolution" according to Ray. Never mind
that nearly all other anti-evolution activists beg to differ -
although rarely directly to Ray.
He may be the only evolution denier to use the term "species" for
Paley's watches. Maybe he has seen them replicate, and we can't due to
our "atheist bias." ;-)
*Hemidactylus*
John Harshman
Great. Now prove that antibiotic resistance evolves through
"unguided/unintelligent natural processes". How would you go about that?
> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
quantum event.
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I failed to do was cue newbies in.
The regulars here at Talk Origins know that I am a species
immutabilist (there is no evidence supporting microevolution). The
Challenge is for the Darwinists to provide *any* supporting evidence.
Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On May 2, 11:54 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/05/11 20:47, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > speciation).
>
> > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > I think you forgot to tell us what the challenge is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What I failed to do was cue newbies in.
You've failed in much more than that... You also failed to state what
you challenge was.
>
> The regulars here at Talk Origins know that I am a species
> immutabilist (there is no evidence supporting microevolution). The
> Challenge is for the Darwinists to provide *any* supporting evidence.
Which people have done time and time again. You keep ignoring the
evidence, or running away from it.
>
> Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself.
While lacking any tools to let you know if you found such evidence, or
not.
> I came away a
> convinced fixist.
I.e. Ray assumed his conclusion, and now refuses to admit he is
wrong.
> The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
> but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
How does this "challenge" prove any such thing? You first make up
definitions that no one else uses, then you refuse to accept any
evidence that shows you are wrong, plus, you make impossible
demands. How can you possibly think that the above 'proves' anything
other than your own denial?
Of course, science is not "pro atheism", but to Ray, any idea that
causes him to think must be 'pro atheism', as he has no faith in God.
If Ray doesn't see what he imagines to be acts of God, then, for Ray
God doesn't exist.
DJT
>
> Ray
Ray Martinez
Imagine that; doctor of evolutionary biology, John Harshman, cannot
even imagine how to provide one scrap of evidence supporting the
existence of an unguided/unintelligent natural process?
Why, then, does evolutionary "science" accept their existence?
This is why I am a Paleyan IDist. Harshman has just conceded the
Creation v. Darwinism debate : )
> > What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>
> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
> quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Obviously John can, he's pointing out that you won't accept any.
Would you please tell your audience what you'd accept as such
evidence?
>
> Why, then, does evolutionary "science" accept their existence
"Evolutionary science" does accept the existence of natural processes,
it's you that does not, for no apparent reason.
>
> This is why I am a Paleyan IDist. Harshman has just conceded the
> Creation v. Darwinism debate : )
Like usual, Ray, you got it wrong. John didn't "concede" anything.
He's pointing out that you are being unreasonable.
>
> > > What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>
> > Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
> > 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
> > wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
> > quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
>
> Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
Because they can be observed. What evidence do you have that
supernatural processes exist?
>
> Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate
Wrong again, Ray. John is showing that your "challenge" is
meaningless, as you won't accept any process to be "unintelligent/
unguided". You won't state what you'd accept as an "unintelligent/
unguided" process, and you mistakenly assume that any process that
shows order must be supernatural.
DJT
>
> Ray
John Harshman
Sorry, Ray, but you seem not to understand the difference between
evidence and proof. There's plenty of evidence. However, there can be no
proof. As with pretty much all science.
> Why, then, does evolutionary "science" accept their existence?
Because, though there can be no proof, that's the way to bet. No
intelligence is detectable. Doesn't mean it isn't there, but that would
be the most likely inference.
> This is why I am a Paleyan IDist. Harshman has just conceded the
> Creation v. Darwinism debate : )
Only in your fantasy world. Let's try a hypothetical. If there were a
natural, unguided process, how would you recognize it?
>>> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
>> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
>> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
>> quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
>
> Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
>
> Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate.
No, Harshman has conceded that there is no conceivable way, in any
universe, to win your challenge. There is no conceivable way to prove
that anything wasn't designed. Especially to you, since you think
everything is designed, including snowflakes, rocks, and presumably
individual nucleotides.
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > Definition explanation:
>
> > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > speciation).
>
> > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > inanimate material environment.
>
> > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> Your definitions are all poorly stated,
Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
will appear in my book/refutation.
The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
(unguided/unintelligent)?
> but I believe I get the drift.
> It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
> there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
> there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
> microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
> the way) is impossible to satisfy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is why I am a species immutabilist: if there was ANY evidence
that species undergo Darwinian modification, our doctor of
evolutionary biology would have posted it. Instead he implies that
natural processes are assumed. Yes, microevolution is a pro-Atheist
assumption concerning species. Assumption, of course, is not evidence.
With these things said, why is any non-Atheist an evolutionist?
Ray
Ray Martinez
Good example of extreme confusion: this person thinks anti-
evolutionists accept (micro)evolution. If true then said persons are
not anti-evolutionists.
Ray
[....]
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6a93cdaf-8bb5-403c...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com:
Ergo, you consider the editors of Answers in Genesis to be atheists.
(They have stated repeatedly that they accept micro-evolution within a
species.)
Ray, you truly are the creationists' creationist--the ne plus ultra.
Steven L.
Steven L.
"Frank J" <fc...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6e567435-e31e-4301...@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
In order for the pocket watches to mate, you have to put one watch on
top of another one.
Have you ever thought of THAT????
-- Steven L.
Ernest Major
<6a93cdaf-8bb5-403c...@k15g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
need qualify your challenge with "accomplished by an
unguided/unintelligent natural process". By adding that qualification
you give the impression that you recognise that "slight changes in
species are observed" (as indeed they are).
--
alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
> On May 2, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > speciation).
>
> > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> > Your definitions are all poorly stated,
>
> Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> will appear in my book/refutation.
That merely supports John's statement. It has already been explained
to you why that definition is inadequate.
>
> The worst definition is allele change.
The correct definition of evolution is allele change in a population,
over generations.
> To say mere change at the
> genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> fraudulent
Why would it be either "loony", or "fraudulent"? Is it because you
know that genetic change can easily be shown?
> But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> (unguided/unintelligent)?
Again, no one but you defines "evolutionary" change as "unguided/
unintelligent". That is one reason your definition is wrong.
>
> > but I believe I get the drift.
> > It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
> > there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
> > there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
> > microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
> > the way) is impossible to satisfy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is why I am a species immutabilist: if there was ANY evidence
> that species undergo Darwinian modification, our doctor of
> evolutionary biology would have posted it.
There is a great deal of evidence that rational persons would accept
as evolution. Since you never give any indication you even know what
"Darwinian modification" means, it's pointless to try to present you
with any.
> Instead he implies that
> natural processes are assumed.
No, natural processes are observed. It's your assumption that the
processes are supernatural.
> Yes, microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> assumption concerning species. Assumption, of course, is not evidence.
Microevolution is an observed process. It's your own assumption that
evolutionary changes don't happen.
>
> With these things said, why is any non-Atheist an evolutionist?
Because the overwhelming evidence shows that evolution happens.
That's the same reason atheists tend to support evolution.
DJT
Bruce Stephens
[...]
> Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> (unguided/unintelligent)?
We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
It could be that everything in the universe is maintained by large teams
of invisible (and in all ways undetectable) superintelligent badgers,
for example. Or that the brain-in-a-vat idea is really true. If that's
all you've got, your book's going to be really pointless.
[...]
Ernest Major
<jhar...@pacbell.net> writes
solipism are not subject to evidential disproof. But those roads all
lead to denying that evidence is of aid to understanding..
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8cf2a363-3783-4b25...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
From Answers in Genesis:
"In the media, textbooks, and scientific literature, the occurrence of
evolution has become a fact. The definition of the word evolution has
also taken on two different meanings that are not equal. Evolution can
be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This
is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists
and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of
evolution allows change within groups but not between groups."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution
AiG not only accepts microevolution, they consider it to be good
observational science.
Unlike you, they cannot deny changes that have been documented *in
modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
lifetime*.
Among these are:
1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
medications.
2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
micro-evolution.
Do you deny that MRSA is a new infectious threat that we didn't have to
deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
the 1960s, then where did it come from?
How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
If your book is going to be any good, it has to explain how the advent
of MRSA and VRSA occurred *without any evolutionary process*. Because
even the Discovery Institute and AiG accept that it *evolved* from less
resistant strains of staph.
-- Steven L.
Dana Tweedy
yes, Ray, everyone knows you are confused.
> this person thinks anti-
> evolutionists accept (micro)evolution.
The vast majority do. You are the only one who refuses to accept
observed facts.
> If true then said persons are
> not anti-evolutionists
Wrong again, Ray. If the above were true, you'd be the worlds one
and only "anti-evolutionist".
DJT
Ray Martinez
> On May 2, 1:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> That's not how the term is defined by any scientist, or by any sane
> person. Of course, you need to state what you'd accept as an
> unguided/unintelligent process. It's easily demonstrated that
> "slight changes" happen within species, but if you automatically
> reject those changes because you claim they aren't "unguided/
> unintelligent", your "challenge" is pointless.
>
Again, a simple, legitimate and straightforward question: What is the
evidence for the existence of unguided/unintelligent natural
process(es)? It seems to me that you are attempting to shift the
burden of proof onto me? Yet I am the one who rejects their existence
due to lack of evidence!
If these process(es) exist, and if these process(es) have been tested,
which presupposes visibility, then why can't you or some other
Darwinist cough up the (observational) evidence? What's the problem?
Since you are being challenged, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
I will accept whatever is produced. What choice do I have since I
believe these things do not exist?
Right now, at this very moment, the ToE exists in a state of
falsification : ) : ) : )!!!
> Would you accept that any genetic changes seen in a population that
> were not deliberately produced by human genetic manipulation are
> "unguided/unintelligent" until proven otherwise ?
>
Note that the above proposition fails the OP criteria, however. With
this said, how do you know these genetic changes were caused by an
unguided/unintelligent agent or process?
The point, even when I entertain your desired definition, is that you
are still in the same position/predicament, needing to evidence how
you know change is caused by unguided/unintelligent material process
or agent.
>
>
> > Definition explanation:
>
> > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > speciation).
>
> Can you please make up your mind. Do you want it within species, or
> speciation?
>
Doesn't matter----that's why I said "any." I am trying to make it easy
as possible by eliminating restrictions.
[snip self evident nonsense....]
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
>
Then why do you deny the existence of design?
ToE says the concept of design does not exist in nature; therefore
Intelligent agency is not causing biological production. Obviously you
need to re-think your response.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
More excellent evidence of confusion: This person thinks persons can
be for and against X at the same time.
Straight thinking: a person cannot be for and against X at the same
time; that is, persons cannot accept and be against evolution (anti-
evolution) at the same time.
Ray
chris thompson
> On May 3, 1:41 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> > > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> > > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > > fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> > We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
>
> Then why do you deny the existence of design?
Are you capable of understanding the difference between "there is no
evidence for guidance" and "there is no guidance"?
I think not.
Bruce Stephens
> On May 3, 1:41 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
[...]
>> We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
>
> Then why do you deny the existence of design?
I don't. However, I don't see particularly persuasive evidence for
it---it seems to me that ToE works just fine as an explanation for the
variety of life.
> ToE says the concept of design does not exist in nature; therefore
> Intelligent agency is not causing biological production. Obviously you
> need to re-think your response.
But the evidence supporting ToE is entirely consistent with an
Intelligent Agency which chooses to produce exactly the same evidence as
would be expected without any Intelligent Agency (things like species in
a nested hierarchy, etc.).
So I can't rule that out, but it seems a worthless claim (unfalsifiable
and generally useless). So just as I'm an atheist (in that I don't
believe in a God, though I can't prove that there isn't a God), I reject
Creationism (life might have been created, but if it was it was created
in such a way as to exactly mimic evolution).
Again, if that's all you've got, I suggest you don't bother finishing
your book.
[...]
Ray Martinez
I challenge the Darwinists to a most elementary debate and what do
they do?
Answer: Seek relief from Young Earth Fundamentalists/right-wing
zealots!
Like I have always said: the Fundies and the Atheists are in the same
bed. Ham, Harshman and Dawkins! Whattaworld!
The AiG material says microevolution is observable. Darwinists say the
same thing. I don't see it. But the issue is how do you know causation
is unguided/unintelligent? What is the evidence? What does AiG say,
Steven?
And their quote says "This is often referred to as microevolution and
is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good
observational science." FALSE. Creationists do not accept evolution
and evolutionists do not accept creationism. AiG is demonstrably
confused/deluded since the writer is not aware of the egregious error
in elementary logic.
Your source is as bad and stupid as they get, Steven. LOL : )
Why don't you use Darwin or Mayr or Coyne? What an idea! Use
Darwinists to support Darwinism, not Young Earth Fundamentalists! Once
again : ) LOL : ) LOL!
> Unlike you, they cannot deny changes that have been documented *in
> modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
> lifetime*.
>
> Among these are:
>
> 1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
> medications.
>
> 2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
>
> AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
> even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
> micro-evolution.
>
Then they are Darwinists. And the issue is: what is the evidence that
these micro changes are caused by unguided/unintelligent agency? What
is AiGs answer, Steven?
> Do you deny that MRSA is a new infectious threat that we didn't have to
> deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
> the 1960s, then where did it come from?
>
> How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
> resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
>
> If your book is going to be any good, it has to explain how the advent
> of MRSA and VRSA occurred *without any evolutionary process*. Because
> even the Discovery Institute and AiG accept that it *evolved* from less
> resistant strains of staph.
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Here is my answer: how can antibiotic resistance, for example, be the
work of unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)? Our brightest Ph.D
minds have been unable to solve the problem. Are we to believe that
unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence? Of course not. Evil
Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
The response attempts to have things both ways at the same time.
Again, the thinking of our evolutionist is proven to be confused/
deluded since accepted logic says A cannot be A and not A at the same
time.
Ray
John Harshman
Is there already a word for Martinezism, the idea that there are no
natural, unguided events?
Dana Tweedy
> On May 3, 1:41 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> > > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> > > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > > fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> > We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
>
> Then why do you deny the existence of design?
Because there is no evidence that supernatural design is required.
Natural processes are quite sufficient.
>
> ToE says the concept of design does not exist in nature;
Wrong again, Ray. The theory of evolution explains how the
appearance of design came about.
>therefore
> Intelligent agency is not causing biological production.
Wrong, and doesn't follow. The theory of evolution doesn't make any
statement about intelligent agencies. In fact, the action of human
intelligent agencies in stock breeding is well understood within the
theory of evolution.
>Obviously you
> need to re-think your response.
Obviously, you are wrong again, Ray
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On May 2, 1:43 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 1:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > That's not how the term is defined by any scientist, or by any sane
> > person. Of course, you need to state what you'd accept as an
> > unguided/unintelligent process. It's easily demonstrated that
> > "slight changes" happen within species, but if you automatically
> > reject those changes because you claim they aren't "unguided/
> > unintelligent", your "challenge" is pointless.
>
> Again, a simple, legitimate and straightforward question: What is the
> evidence for the existence of unguided/unintelligent natural
> process(es)?
And I give you the same straightforward answer you keep ignoring: The
direct observation of those processes happening.
> It seems to me that you are attempting to shift the
> burden of proof onto me?
"Shift"? Ray, the burden of proof has *ALWAYS* been on you to show
the supernatural exists. The natural can be directly observed.
This is why Science makes use of methodological naturalism.
It's not possible to totally rule out the influence of a supposed
supernatural being. Therefore, in order to operate at all, science
limits itself to only what CAN BE observed.
You are the one making the positive claim that there is evidence of
supernatural guidance. You've never shown a single bit of evidence
that natural processes are anything but unguided/unintelligent
>Yet I am the one who rejects their existence
> due to lack of evidence!
Ray, you "reject their existence" only because of your religious
prejudice. You have no rational excuse to reject the existence of
observed processes. All you can do make unreasonable demands on
science. Science is not capable, or interested in "proving" the
supernatural doesn't exist.
>
> If these process(es) exist, and if these process(es) have been tested,
> which presupposes visibility, then why can't you or some other
> Darwinist cough up the (observational) evidence?
Again, the observational evidence of natural processes is all around
you. You can't possibly go throughout a day without seeing natural
processes at work.
Any chemical process is a natural. Any physical process is a
natural. Any biological process is a natural process.
Your error is in assuming that if something is orderly, it must be
"guided". That's false, as has been shown you time and time
again.
> What's the problem?
the problem is that you are willfully blind. You won't accept what's
literally under your nose.
> Since you are being challenged, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Once again, you are the one making the positive claim that the
supernatural exists. I only have to show that processes happen
without known influence. You can't deny that ice melts, or the wind
blows, or that steam expands. All those processes happen, and are
easily demonstrated. If you wish to add the needless complication of
a supernatural being causing these things, it's up to you to offer
evidence.
> I will accept whatever is produced
How about the Krebs cycle?
http://incolor.inebraska.com/mcanaday/main.htm
You claim you will "accept whatever is produced". I say you are
lying. You will try to object to this process as being "guided". If
you do not, then you must admit that natural processes are indeed
possible.
> What choice do I have since I
> believe these things do not exist?
You have the "choice" to reject anything that contradicts your false
assertions. I suspect you will use that option. If you don't believe
that natural processes exist, then you seem to be admitting that
evolution is God's method of creating.
>
> Right now, at this very moment, the ToE exists in a state of
> falsification : ) : ) : )!!!
Where do you get that silly idea, Ray? Even if you could show that
natural processes are driven by a supernatural being, the evidence for
evolution is still beyond any reasonable doubt. Nothing you've
said here, or anywhere else comes close to falsifying evolution as a
scientific theory.
>
> > Would you accept that any genetic changes seen in a population that
> > were not deliberately produced by human genetic manipulation are
> > "unguided/unintelligent" until proven otherwise ?
>
> Note that the above proposition fails the OP criteria, however.
Because the "criteria" above is foolish, for the reason I've shown.
You can't show any evidence of supernatural influence. Without such
evidence, the default position is that the processes are natural.
> With
> this said, how do you know these genetic changes were caused by an
> unguided/unintelligent agent or process?
Because they were the result of mutations, which do not require a
guided, or intelligent agent, or process. Again, the only way you'd
be able to argue that they ARE guided, or intelligent in origin, you'd
have to show some evidence to support that assertion. All I have to
do is to show that mutations happen. Do you deny mutations occur?
Worse, for you, even if they were guided, they'd still refute your
claims of "immutability". Evolution doesn't care if the genetic
changes are the result of 'intelligent', or "unintelligent" changes in
the DNA molecule. Evolution is DEFINED as allele change in a
population over generations. Despite your own fantasy, it says
nothing about the intent, or the providence of those changes.
>
> The point, even when I entertain your desired definition, is that you
> are still in the same position/predicament, needing to evidence how
> you know change is caused by unguided/unintelligent material process
> or agent.
I don't need to "know" that. All I need to do is demonstrate that
genetic changes happen in populations over time. Doing that neatly
refutes your assertions of "immutability". Remember, it's you, and
ONLY you who defines evolution as being the result of "unguided/
unintelligent" processes.
My personal religious belief is that God is behind the process of
evolution, but such a belief is not science. As far as can be told,
genetic changes happen by natural processes.
>
>
>
> > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > speciation).
>
> > Can you please make up your mind. Do you want it within species, or
> > speciation?
>
> Doesn't matter----that's why I said "any." I am trying to make it easy
> as possible by eliminating restrictions.
Yeah, like the restriction of having to "prove" that the supernatural
doesn't exist. One can't prove a negative, and it seems the only way
to satisfy your requirements.
It's quite easy to show genetic changes happening within populations,
and those changes being inherited. The hard part is "proving" to you
that those processes can't possibly involve a being that can't be
observed by any tool science has. That is why science makes use of
methodological naturalism.
>
> [snip self evident nonsense....]
As usual, Ray uses the term 'self evident' to avoid having to support
an unsupportable assertion.
DJT
John Harshman
> On May 2, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
>>> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>>> Definition explanation:
>>> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
>>> speciation).
>>> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>>> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
>>> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>>> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
>>> inanimate material environment.
>>> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
>>> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
>>> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>> Your definitions are all poorly stated,
>
> Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> will appear in my book/refutation.
That's what we call a non sequitur. The fact that something will appear
in your book is irrelevant to whether it's poorly stated. (Well, if
anything, there should be a positive correlation.)
> The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> (unguided/unintelligent)?
There's no way to know. God could do anything and make it look like
anything else. If we allow God into the hypothesis, just because
something looks unguided is no reason to believe that it really is. So
the challenge you pose is impossible. (And that's why methodological
naturalism is essential to science.)
>> but I believe I get the drift.
>> It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
>> there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
>> there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
>> microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
>> the way) is impossible to satisfy.
> This is why I am a species immutabilist: if there was ANY evidence
> that species undergo Darwinian modification, our doctor of
> evolutionary biology would have posted it.
The problem is that in your world there can be no such evidence. Even if
there were Darwinian modification, there could be no evidence of it.
There is no way to tell whether a process is natural, given that God can
do anything.
> Instead he implies that
> natural processes are assumed. Yes, microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> assumption concerning species. Assumption, of course, is not evidence.
>
> With these things said, why is any non-Atheist an evolutionist?
I thought your position was that all evolutionists were atheists by
definition.
So, back to a hypothetical. If there were a natural process, how would
we recognize it?
Ray Martinez
Equivocation or muddles thinking?
"No intelligence....Doesn't mean it isn't there."
We need to remember that this guy has a doctorate. He agrees with the
RichardDawkins.net slogan "A Clear Thinking Oasis."
> > This is why I am a Paleyan IDist. Harshman has just conceded the
> > Creation v. Darwinism debate : )
>
> Only in your fantasy world. Let's try a hypothetical. If there were a
> natural, unguided process, how would you recognize it?
>
Since you admitted plainly that you cannot support unguided/
unintelligent process, you conceded the debate.
Answer to question: I couldn't since none exist. But Darwinism says
they do. What is the evidence that these are unintelligent? Why don't
you just say "Because they originate from material environment"?
> >>> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
> >> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
> >> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
> >> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
> >> quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
>
> > Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
>
> > Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate.
>
> No, Harshman has conceded that there is no conceivable way, in any
> universe, to win your challenge. There is no conceivable way to prove
> that anything wasn't designed. Especially to you, since you think
> everything is designed, including snowflakes, rocks, and presumably
> individual nucleotides.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And you believe everything evolved.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Which shows that Ray is incapable of thinking outside his tiny
box.
> Again, the thinking of our evolutionist is proven to be confused/
> deluded since accepted logic says A cannot be A and not A at the same
> time.
Ray, can an apple be a fruit, and a falling object at the same time?
Can an orange be both round, and have seeds? Just because you don't
know what properties "A" and "not A" have, doesn't mean that others
can't understand subtleties of reality.
DJT
John Harshman
> On May 3, 11:34 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Let's try a hypothetical. If there were a
>> natural, unguided process, how would you recognize it?
>
> Since you admitted plainly that you cannot support unguided/
> unintelligent process, you conceded the debate.
>
> Answer to question: I couldn't since none exist. But Darwinism says
> they do. What is the evidence that these are unintelligent? Why don't
> you just say "Because they originate from material environment"?
So your mind is incapable of entertaining hypothetical situations. Why
do you have this limitation? Come, sir. I am capable of imagining your
God. Are your talents so inferior to mine? Answer the simple question.
Ernest Major
>>>
>>>>>> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>>>>> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
>>>>> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
>>>>> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
>>>>> quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
>>>> Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
>>>> Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate.
>>>
>>> No, Harshman has conceded that there is no conceivable way, in any
>>>universe, to win your challenge. There is no conceivable way to prove
>>>that anything wasn't designed. Especially to you, since you think
>>>everything is designed, including snowflakes, rocks, and presumably
>>>individual nucleotides.
>>>
>> To put in other words omphalism, occasionalism, simulationism and
>>solipism are not subject to evidential disproof. But those roads all
>>lead to denying that evidence is of aid to understanding..
>
>Is there already a word for Martinezism, the idea that there are no
>natural, unguided events?
>
correctly understand the precise denotation of the term, but
occasionalism is I believe the appropriate word.
--
alias Ernest Major
Ray Martinez
TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
Ray
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
John Harshman
Thanks. I looked it up, and I agree that as far as Ray has any coherent
position, he appears to be an occasionalist.
John Harshman
>
> TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
Oh. I thought you meant "muggle thinking". And it's true that I'm a
muggle. No matter how often I try, the snakes won't talk to me. And I
don't know how many times I've repeated "Accio book", but it just lies
there, mocking me.
Dana Tweedy
They demonstrate your ignorance, and inability to engage in elementary
debate.
>
> Answer: Seek relief from Young Earth Fundamentalists/right-wing
> zealots!
Actually, they show that your own brand of fundamental zealotry is
just as bad.
>
> Like I have always said: the Fundies and the Atheists are in the same
> bed. Ham, Harshman and Dawkins! Whattaworld!
Your statements have always been wrong. So what?
>
> The AiG material says microevolution is observable.
Which is true.
> Darwinists say the
> same thing.
Also, because it's true.
> I don't see it.
Because you are willfully blind. The fact you don't see what
everyone else does should be some kind of clue....
> But the issue is how do you know causation
> is unguided/unintelligent?
By observing the process, and not finding any guidance, or
intelligence. How many times do you need to hear that answer.
> What is the evidence? What does AiG say,
> Steven?
The evidence is that the processes have been observed. That makes
them natural by default. It's up to you to show the processes
require guidance, or intelligence.
>
> And their quote says "This is often referred to as microevolution and
> is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good
> observational science." FALSE.
why is it false, Ray? Do you deny that it's been obseved?
>Creationists do not accept evolution
> and evolutionists do not accept creationism.
Obviously, you are mistaken. There are many 'evolutionists" who
believe that God created by using evolution. As Steven has shown many
"creationists" accept small scale evolution.
> AiG is demonstrably
> confused/deluded since the writer is not aware of the egregious error
> in elementary logic.
Remember, Ray, you fail even the most elementary logic.
>
> Your source is as bad and stupid as they get, Steven. LOL :
It could be worse, Steven could have been using you as a source.
>
> Why don't you use Darwin or Mayr or Coyne?
Because he's refuting your claim that "creationists" don't accept
microevolution. Darwin, Mayr, or Coyne were not creationists.
> What an idea! Use
> Darwinists to support Darwinism, not Young Earth Fundamentalists! Once
> again : ) LOL : ) LOL!
Ray, Steven's reference is sufficient to refute your claim. An "old
earth" fundamentalist like yourself is not any more correct.
>
> > Unlike you, they cannot deny changes that have been documented *in
> > modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
> > lifetime*.
>
> > Among these are:
>
> > 1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
> > medications.
>
> > 2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
>
> > AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
> > even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
> > micro-evolution.
>
> Then they are Darwinists.
Nope, they are creationists, just like you.
> And the issue is: what is the evidence that
> these micro changes are caused by unguided/unintelligent agency? What
> is AiGs answer, Steven?
It doesn't matter, Ray. You've been given the answer. The changes
happened, so they were caused by natural processes. It's up to you
to show any evidence that the cause was guided, or intelligent.
What's your answer, Ray?
>
> > Do you deny that MRSA is a new infectious threat that we didn't have to
> > deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
> > the 1960s, then where did it come from?
>
> > How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
> > resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
>
> > If your book is going to be any good, it has to explain how the advent
> > of MRSA and VRSA occurred *without any evolutionary process*. Because
> > even the Discovery Institute and AiG accept that it *evolved* from less
> > resistant strains of staph.
>
> > -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Here is my answer: how can antibiotic resistance, for example, be the
> work of unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)?
Easily. By the process of mutation and selection happening over
generations.
>Our brightest Ph.D
> minds have been unable to solve the problem.
Which only shows that natural processes produce problems that even
"brightest Ph.Ds" are unable to solve. That doesn't mean the process
themselves are intelligent.
>Are we to believe that
> unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence?
Yes. Why not? Human intelligence isn't unlimited. Humans have
been trying to control landslides, and avalanches, hurricanes, and
tornadoes for centuries, and they keep outdoing the best work of
scientists and engineers.
Do you imagine that storms and land movements are intelligent?
>Of course not. Evil
> Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
Wow, when you throw out a non sequitur, you sure make it a whopper!
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Yes, Ray, everyone knows how confused you are.
>This person thinks persons can
> be for and against X at the same time.
Ray, people often work at cross purposes, and internalize conflicting
beliefs. You yourself both claim to support President Obama, and
deride "evolutionists" as "evil" , even though President Obama accepts
evolution.
The vast majority of creationists accept that a small level of
evolution is going on, because they'd appear foolish if they were to
deny it. You, apparently don't concern yourself with looking
foolish, and openly embrace it.
>
> Straight thinking:
Something Ray knows nothing about.....
>a person cannot be for and against X at the same
> time;
Showing Ray knows nothing about human nature, as well as biology.
> is, persons cannot accept and be against evolution (anti-
> evolution) at the same time.
Wrong again, Ray. The existence of AiG, and other creationist
organizations shows just how wrong you are.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
You tend to use both, Ray.
>
> "No intelligence....Doesn't mean it isn't there."
You left out the important phrase 'is detectable'. Do you agree that
you can't always detect what might be there?
>
> We need to remember that this guy has a doctorate.
And "we" need to remember that you are unlikely to have graduated
kindergarten.
> He agrees with the
> RichardDawkins.net slogan "A Clear Thinking Oasis."
Unlike Ray, for whom apparently clear thinking is a mirage....
>
> > > This is why I am a Paleyan IDist. Harshman has just conceded the
> > > Creation v. Darwinism debate : )
>
> > Only in your fantasy world. Let's try a hypothetical. If there were a
> > natural, unguided process, how would you recognize it?
>
> Since you admitted plainly that you cannot support unguided/
> unintelligent process, you conceded the debate.
Ray, he didn't say that. You are mistaken, again.
>
> Answer to question: I couldn't since none exist. But Darwinism says
> they do. What is the evidence that these are unintelligent
That they occur without any required intelligent input. As John has
already stated, no intelligence is evident. According to you that
means no intelligence is present. Or perhaps you can admit you got
that wrong too?
> Why don't
> you just say "Because they originate from material environment"?
Why would he need to say such a silly thing. All known things
"originate" from a material environment. If you can show any
evidence of any other kind of environment, have at it.
>
> > >>> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
> > >> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
> > >> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
> > >> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
> > >> quantum event.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > Yep, #4 is the sticking point.
>
> > > Darwinists: how do you know these processes exist?
>
> > > Again, Harshman has conceded the Challenge and **the** debate.
>
> > No, Harshman has conceded that there is no conceivable way, in any
> > universe, to win your challenge. There is no conceivable way to prove
> > that anything wasn't designed. Especially to you, since you think
> > everything is designed, including snowflakes, rocks, and presumably
> > individual nucleotides.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> And you believe everything evolved.
>
Not everything, just living things. More to the point, there is
evidence that living things evolved. What evidence would you like to
offer that snowflakes require intelligence?
DJT
Ray Martinez
You now have produced 3 or 4 small-talk messages. You are stalling.
You have no answers to basic questions. But Darwin and 20th century
evolutionary authorities have answered these questions. The reason YOU
cannot answer is because you are attempting to have things both ways
at the same time; that is, you are saying evolution is unintelligent
but it is possible that Intelligence is behind it all. Your attempt
fails when we remember that you are a declared Atheist. This means
your input concerning Intelligence is ad hoc.
With naive and stupid "Christian" Evolutionists present in this
thread, we have an explanation as to why Atheist John Harshman is
allowing the possibility of Intelligence.
Ray
John Harshman
> On May 3, 3:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>> TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
>> Oh. I thought you meant "muggle thinking". And it's true that I'm a
>> muggle. No matter how often I try, the snakes won't talk to me. And I
>> don't know how many times I've repeated "Accio book", but it just lies
>> there, mocking me.
>
> You now have produced 3 or 4 small-talk messages. You are stalling.
> You have no answers to basic questions.
Could you repeat the basic questions?
Dana Tweedy
> On May 3, 3:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
>
> > Oh. I thought you meant "muggle thinking". And it's true that I'm a
> > muggle. No matter how often I try, the snakes won't talk to me. And I
> > don't know how many times I've repeated "Accio book", but it just lies
> > there, mocking me.
>
> You now have produced 3 or 4 small-talk messages. You are stalling.
> You have no answers to basic questions.
Ray, you don't even know what the "basic questions" are.
> But Darwin and 20th century
> evolutionary authorities have answered these questions.
Which you've obviously misunderstood.
>The reason YOU
> cannot answer is because you are attempting to have things both ways
> at the same time; that is, you are saying evolution is unintelligent
> but it is possible that Intelligence is behind it all.
Ray, what he's telling you is what everyone else has been trying to
tell you. Evolution operates without any known intelligent input, but
there is no way to rule out a supernatural being. That's why science
doesn't try.
It's not trying to "have thing both ways" but a simple acknowledgement
of the limits of science.
> Your attempt
> fails when we remember that you are a declared Atheist. This means
> your input concerning Intelligence is ad hoc.
Once again, being an atheist, or not has nothing to do with it. John
apparently doesn't believe that any supernatural being is involved,
but there's no way to absolutely rule out such a being. If you
choose to believe that God is involved in evolution, no one is going
to stop you. Your problem is you are trying to say both that genetic
changes don't happen, and at the same time, claiming the changes are
guided by a supernatural being. Make up your mind, and stick to one
position. The former makes you a fool, and the latter makes you a
theistic evolutionist.
>
> With naive and stupid "Christian" Evolutionists present in this
> thread, we have an explanation as to why Atheist John Harshman is
> allowing the possibility of Intelligence.
Ray, as you know, the only naive and stupid one here is you. John
allows for the possibility of intelligent input for the simple reason
there's no way to rule it out. If you feel you can offer any
evidence for an intelligent supernatural being, you are welcome to do
so. This brings up the question of why you have not.
DJT
Ray Martinez
> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> Definition explanation:
>
> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> speciation).
>
> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> inanimate material environment.
>
> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
Conclusions (after 52 messages were posted):
* The Darwinists admitted (begrudgingly) that proviso #4 is based on
the fact that Intelligence or Guidance are not seen in these
'processes.' If true, then this conclusion is logically sound (natural
processes are unguided/unintelligent).
* Young Earth Fundamentalists see what the Darwinists see. Evidence
was produced that said these persons accept natural selection causing
microevolution.
* Darwinism/Young Earth Fundamentalism (natural selection/
microevolution) is delusion. We do not see any unguided/unintelligent
natural processes operating in or upon species. We see design, which
indicates Intelligent-supernatural agency, not natural agency.
* Intelligence is a synonym for the Genesis Creator (Arch-Deacon
Paley's God): each species owes their existence in nature to
Independent Creation, thus each species is immutable.
Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan-IDist species immutabilist)
John Harshman
> On May 2, 12:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
>> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>>
>> Definition explanation:
>>
>> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
>> speciation).
>>
>> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>>
>> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
>> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>>
>> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
>> inanimate material environment.
>>
>> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
>> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
>> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>>
>> Ray
>
> Conclusions (after 52 messages were posted):
>
> * The Darwinists admitted (begrudgingly) that proviso #4 is based on
> the fact that Intelligence or Guidance are not seen in these
> 'processes.' If true, then this conclusion is logically sound (natural
> processes are unguided/unintelligent).
Nobody admitted anything, begrudgingly or otherwise. Everyone realizes
that you won't admit that anything is a natural process, and you have no
criterion by which unintelligent processes could be distinguished from
intelligent ones.
> * Young Earth Fundamentalists see what the Darwinists see. Evidence
> was produced that said these persons accept natural selection causing
> microevolution.
>
> * Darwinism/Young Earth Fundamentalism (natural selection/
> microevolution) is delusion. We do not see any unguided/unintelligent
> natural processes operating in or upon species. We see design, which
> indicates Intelligent-supernatural agency, not natural agency.
How can you tell the difference? Propose a test.
> * Intelligence is a synonym for the Genesis Creator (Arch-Deacon
> Paley's God): each species owes their existence in nature to
> Independent Creation, thus each species is immutable.
Another non sequitur. An intelligent designer doesn't have to be a god,
and especially doesn't have to be your particular god.
> Ray (Old Earth-Young Biosphere Paleyan-IDist species immutabilist)
What evidence do you have that the earth is old? How old is it?
Tom McDonald
maintain your biases, you have had to rationalize (or misunderstand) quite a
few rather good responses to you.
But why not join Pags in taking a victory lap anyhoo. It won't mean
anything, but you'll probably feel better.
--
Tom
Dana Tweedy
> On May 2, 12:47 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > Definition explanation:
>
> > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > speciation).
>
> > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > inanimate material environment.
>
> > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> > Ray
>
> Conclusions (after 52 messages were posted
Ray is assuming his conclusion yet again.....
>
> * The Darwinists admitted (begrudgingly) that proviso #4 is based on
> the fact that Intelligence or Guidance are not seen in these
> 'processes.' If true, then this conclusion is logically sound (natural
> processes are unguided/unintelligent).
Ray, all processes originate from "material environment", as can be
observed. If non material environments exist, they aren't capable of
being observed by the tools of science.
>
> * Young Earth Fundamentalists see what the Darwinists see. Evidence
> was produced that said these persons accept natural selection causing
> microevolution.
Ray apparently admits to being less in touch with reality than "young
earth fundamentalists". By the way, Ray, neither scientists, or
creationists ever claimed that natural selection by itself causes
evolution. Natural selection is only one part of the mechanism of
evolution.
>
> * Darwinism/Young Earth Fundamentalism (natural selection/
> microevolution) is delusion
Not a "conclusion", but Ray's false assumption. Natural selection is
not microevolution, just one part of the mechanism of evolution.
> We do not see any unguided/unintelligent
> natural processes operating in or upon species.
Because you are willfully blind, and won't see what's happening in
front of you.
> We see design, which
> indicates Intelligent-supernatural agency, not natural agency.
Ray, you are assuming that "design" indicates "intelligent-
supernatural agency". This is what you are supposed to be
demonstrating. The evidence clearly shows that the appearance of
design can be produced by natural processes. You've never been
able to address this fact.
>
> * Intelligence is a synonym for the Genesis Creator (Arch-Deacon
> Paley's God):
Again, this is your assumption. You've never been able to demonstrate
this to be true, or even reasonable. No one but you uses the word
"intelligence" in that way.
>each species owes their existence in nature to
> Independent Creation, thus each species is immutable.
Not only is this false, it's a non sequitur. Even if species were
to be an independent creation, that's no reason why a species must be
immutable. The evidence, again, shows that species change. No matter
what the mechanism, species change.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
> On May 2, 11:54 am, Arkalen<skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 02/05/11 20:47, Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
>>> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>>
>>> Definition explanation:
>>
>>> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
>>> speciation).
>>
>>> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>>
>>> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
>>> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>>
>>> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
>>> inanimate material environment.
>>
>>> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
>>> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
>>> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> The regulars here at Talk Origins know that I am a species
> immutabilist (there is no evidence supporting microevolution). The
> Challenge is for the Darwinists to provide *any* supporting evidence.
>
> Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
> convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
> but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
>
Dog breeds are a shining example of nonfixity. You are defeated.
Klaus Hellnick
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>
> Ray doesn't need an explanation for the challenge. He needs you to fill
> 4 requirements, of which #4 is the one on which all examples will prove
> wanting. Prove to me that god doesn't personally guide each and every
> quantum event.
>
This sounds just like Hovind's bogus evolution challenge, which, while
usually described as simply asking for evidence of evolution, actually
requires people to convince a hand picked panel of religious fanatics
that a god COULD NOT HAVE CREATED THE UNIVERSE!
Klaus
Frank J
> On May 2, 11:54 am, Arkalen <skiz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 02/05/11 20:47, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > speciation).
>
> > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> > > Ray
>
> > I think you forgot to tell us what the challenge is.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What I failed to do was cue newbies in.
>
> The regulars here at Talk Origins know that I am a species
> immutabilist (there is no evidence supporting microevolution). The
> Challenge is for the Darwinists to provide *any* supporting evidence.
Why are you only challenging "Darwinists" when most *creationists*
(including "cdesign proponentsists") also disagree with you????
>
> Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
> convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
> but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
How is it "pro-atheist" when so many people that you admit are *not*
atheists accept it?
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
> On May 2, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > speciation).
>
> > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
>
> Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> > It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
> > there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
> > there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
> > microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> that species undergo Darwinian modification, our doctor of
> natural processes are assumed. Yes, microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> assumption concerning species. Assumption, of course, is not evidence.
>
> With these things said, why is any non-Atheist an evolutionist?
Hold the presses! Are you now admitting that some "evolutionists" are
not atheists?
Or is this the usual "non-immutability" of *definitions* that you
employ to assert immutability of species?
Frank J
> On May 2, 4:00 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:7000021f-7f7e-4dee...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > > speciation).
>
> > > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
>
> > > I still like this example:
>
> > > 1940: Penicillin goes into mass production and widescale use.
> > > Virtually all staph infections can be cured with a single penicillin
> > > shot--as long as they aren't too far advanced.
>
> > > 1946: Time magazine reports on the advent of penicillin resistant
> > > strains of staph infecting patients.
>
> > > 1960s: Methicillin, and flucloxacillin, new generations of penicillin
> > > which still work on most staph, go into widespread use.
>
> > > 1970: MRSA (methicillin-resistant and flucloxacillin-resistant staph
> > > strains) appears.
>
> > > 1990: 90% of staph strains are now resistant to penicillin. The
> > > first-line treatment for MRSA is vancomycin.
>
> > > 1996: Vancomcyin-resistant MRSA (VRSA) appears.
>
> > > All in a single human lifetime.
> > > A Darwinian explanation of this is obvious.
>
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > that nearly all other anti-evolution activists beg to differ -
> > although rarely directly to Ray.
>
> evolutionists accept (micro)evolution. If true then said persons are
> not anti-evolutionists.
You are free to call them whatever you want, but I call them "anti-
evolutionists" because they themselves claim to deny "evolution" in
general, if not "microevolution." Do you call any of them
"creationists"?
>
> Ray
>
> [....]- Hide quoted text -
Frank J
>
> - Show quoted text -
Where do the "maybe young, maybe old earth" geocentrists fit in this
model? With you, or with the YECs and "Darwinists"?
TomS
<bdb3a415-2805-43ff...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Dana Tweedy
stated..."[...snip...]
>>each species owes their existence in nature to
>> Independent Creation, thus each species is immutable.
>
>Not only is this false, it's a non sequitur. Even if species were
>to be an independent creation, that's no reason why a species must be
>immutable. The evidence, again, shows that species change. No matter
>what the mechanism, species change.
Not only is it a non sequitur, we don't even know what it means.
What is an Independent Creation of a species?
If we were to be there when a species was created, how would we
describe what is happening?
Are there many individuals suddenly appearing where there was empty
space before? Is the creation of a species any different from the
creation of an individual or of individuals? Are the new individuals
adults or are they zygotes or are they a mixture of apparent ages?
Or are many species created together at the same time, in a fully
functioning ecological system? Predators and prey, symbionts,
parasites and hosts, and the physical environment, too?
Does the result of one of these creations have the appearance of
age? Like a zygote having the appearance of having been generated
from a predecessor, a tree with growth rings, a tribe recognizing
one another as if they had a lifetime together (like a newly created
"mother" treating a newly created "offspring" as if she had given
birth to it and nursed it)?
--
---Tom S.
"... the heavy people know some magic that can make things move and even fly,
but they're not very bright, because they can't survive without their magic
contrivances"
Xixo, in "The Gods Must Be Crazy II"
hersheyh
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 4:00 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On May 2, 5:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:7000021f-7f7e-4dee...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
>
> > > > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
>
> > > > > Definition explanation:
>
> > > > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > > > speciation).
>
> > > > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
>
> > > > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
>
> > > > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > > > inanimate material environment.
>
> > > > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
>
> > > > I still like this example:
>
> > > > 1940: Penicillin goes into mass production and widescale use.
> > > > Virtually all staph infections can be cured with a single penicillin
> > > > shot--as long as they aren't too far advanced.
>
> > > > 1946: Time magazine reports on the advent of penicillin resistant
> > > > strains of staph infecting patients.
>
> > > > 1960s: Methicillin, and flucloxacillin, new generations of penicillin
> > > > which still work on most staph, go into widespread use.
>
> > > > 1970: MRSA (methicillin-resistant and flucloxacillin-resistant staph
> > > > strains) appears.
>
> > > > 1990: 90% of staph strains are now resistant to penicillin. The
> > > > first-line treatment for MRSA is vancomycin.
>
> > > > 1996: Vancomcyin-resistant MRSA (VRSA) appears.
>
> > > > All in a single human lifetime.
> > > > A Darwinian explanation of this is obvious.
>
> > > > What's your explanation of this, Ray?
>
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > that nearly all other anti-evolution activists beg to differ -
> > > although rarely directly to Ray.
>
> > Good example of extreme confusion: this person thinks anti-
> > evolutionists accept (micro)evolution. If true then said persons are
> > not anti-evolutionists.
>
>
> "In the media, textbooks, and scientific literature, the occurrence of
> evolution has become a fact. The definition of the word evolution has
> also taken on two different meanings that are not equal. Evolution can
> be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This
> is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists
> and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of
> evolution allows change within groups but not between groups."
>
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution
>
> AiG not only accepts microevolution, they consider it to be good
> observational science.
>
> modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
> lifetime*.
>
> Among these are:
>
> 1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
> medications.
>
> 2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
>
> AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
> even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
> micro-evolution.
>
> deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
> the 1960s, then where did it come from?
>
> How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
> resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
Easy. Ray's kind and loving God created them from thin air to punish
us for the sin of huberis. We thought that we could cure the diseases
and death that he desires for us and that had free rein before modern
science. How dare we think that life could be anything but nasty,
brutish, and short. Those are the lives God wants us to live. Lots
of yummy deaths of innocent children before they can sin, but after
they are baptized and saved. Suffering pleases him no end. God would
be happier if we did not do science, which is inherently atheistic and
often challenges the 'truth' of God's own Word.
hersheyh
> On May 3, 1:41 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> > > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> > > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > > fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
>
> Then why do you deny the existence of design?
>
> Intelligent agency is not causing biological production. Obviously you
> need to re-think your response.
The ToE says no such thing. Artificial selection, selection done by a
known designing intelligent agent, has always been fundamental to
understanding the basic assumptions involved in evolution that occurs
in the absence of any known designing intelligent agent. When there
is evidence for intelligent (or even not so intelligent) modifications
of life by a putatively intelligent, and observable, agent, the ToE
accepts it. And "the absence of any known designing intelligent
agent" is not a claim that no such agent exists, only that such an
agent has not been observed. One can always, as a matter of faith,
believe that such an agent exists and is behind anything that actually
occurs. One can even, as a matter of faith, believe that such an
agent can and even does things for which there is no evidence
whatsoever, like the idea of a man rising from the dead or that there
are aliens behind comet Tuttle come to save us. Did you note those
two words: 'faith' and 'believe'? That is what you have when you have
no actual evidence to support a position.
Of course Ray also has intentional ignorance and comically
disingenuous and inconsistent arguments.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> > It could be that everything in the universe is maintained by large teams
> > of invisible (and in all ways undetectable) superintelligent badgers,
> > for example. Or that the brain-in-a-vat idea is really true. If that's
> > all you've got, your book's going to be really pointless.
>
> > [...]
hersheyh
> they do?
>
> zealots!
>
> bed. Ham, Harshman and Dawkins! Whattaworld!
>
> same thing. I don't see it. But the issue is how do you know causation
> is unguided/unintelligent? What is the evidence? What does AiG say,
> Steven?
>
> And their quote says "This is often referred to as microevolution and
> is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good
> and evolutionists do not accept creationism. AiG is demonstrably
> confused/deluded since the writer is not aware of the egregious error
> in elementary logic.
>
>
> Why don't you use Darwin or Mayr or Coyne? What an idea! Use
> Darwinists to support Darwinism, not Young Earth Fundamentalists! Once
> again : ) LOL : ) LOL!
>
> > modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
> > lifetime*.
>
> > Among these are:
>
> > 1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
> > medications.
>
> > 2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
>
> > AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
> > even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
> > micro-evolution.
>
> these micro changes are caused by unguided/unintelligent agency? What
> is AiGs answer, Steven?
>
> > deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
> > the 1960s, then where did it come from?
>
> > How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
> > resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
>
> > of MRSA and VRSA occurred *without any evolutionary process*. Because
> > even the Discovery Institute and AiG accept that it *evolved* from less
> > resistant strains of staph.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> minds have been unable to solve the problem. Are we to believe that
> unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence? Of course not. Evil
> Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
>
Actually the brightest Ph.D.s have already solved the problem.
Mutation produces variation. Selection changes the frequency of
alleles in a population. They can observe the change in genomes now
right down to what nucleotides produce the new function. They have
demonstrated the chemistry of how mutation occurs. They have observed
experimentally and in nature the consequences for frequency of alleles
under different selective pressures. They even know how resistances
can spread "sexually" among bacteria.
That you don't know this, and thus attribute the changes to fighting
alternative gods and evil spirits does not put your thinking in the
modern 21st century. It makes you no different than the African
christian pastors (better called profits) that attribute evil to witch
children who then have acid forced down their throats or worse.
*****To the superstitious in Africa, no event has a natural, causal or
scientific reason.****** Any tragedy – disease, miscarriage,
unemployment or death in the family – is considered the work of
witches.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_324943.html
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1556141.php/Nigeria-s-perverted-Christianity-on-Saving-Africa-s-Witch-Children-HBO2-May-26
I will agree that any Christianity that claims that "no event has a
natural, causal, or scientific reason" is espousing a perverted
Christianity. Since you don't believe that there is any natural,
causal, or scientific reason that can explain the appearance of
bacterial resistance to antibiotics and attribute it, instead, to the
purposeful actions of intelligent but evil gods/angels (aka, Satan) or
witches, guess what I think about your form of Christianity.
hersheyh
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On May 2, 1:29 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> unguided/unintelligent natural process.
> >>> Definition explanation:
> >>> 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> >>> speciation).
> >>> 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
> >>> 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> >>> Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
> >>> 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> >>> inanimate material environment.
> >>> Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> >>> your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> >>> provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
>
> > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> in your book is irrelevant to whether it's poorly stated. (Well, if
> anything, there should be a positive correlation.)
>
> > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > fraudulent.
Allele change is called mutation. Perhaps you mean "allele frequency
change"? There is a difference. One occurs to an individual allele.
The other occurs in populations of alleles.
> >But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> There's no way to know. God could do anything and make it look like
> anything else. If we allow God into the hypothesis, just because
> something looks unguided is no reason to believe that it really is. So
> the challenge you pose is impossible. (And that's why methodological
> naturalism is essential to science.)
>
> >> but I believe I get the drift.
> >> It seems as if #4 is the main sticking point. Since you don't believe
> >> there are any unguided/unintelligent natural processes, it follows that
> >> there is no way for anyone to show you that any change is
> >> microevolution. And your challenge (which you never actually state, by
> >> the way) is impossible to satisfy.
> > This is why I am a species immutabilist: if there was ANY evidence
> > that species undergo Darwinian modification, our doctor of
> > evolutionary biology would have posted it.
>
> The problem is that in your world there can be no such evidence. Even if
> there were Darwinian modification, there could be no evidence of it.
> There is no way to tell whether a process is natural, given that God can
> do anything.
>
> > Instead he implies that
> > natural processes are assumed. Yes, microevolution is a pro-Atheist
> > assumption concerning species. Assumption, of course, is not evidence.
>
> > With these things said, why is any non-Atheist an evolutionist?
>
> I thought your position was that all evolutionists were atheists by
> definition.
>
> So, back to a hypothetical. If there were a natural process, how would
> we recognize it?
John Harshman
Dana Tweedy
All the above are very good questions, which indicates to me that Ray
would rather pull out his own liver than address them.
DJT
Ray Martinez
A person cannot be an IDist/Creationist and a Darwinist at the same
time. They can only be one OR the other; therefore any "IDist/
Creationist" who defends the main claim of Darwin 1859 ("On The Origin
Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection") is a Darwinist (albeit a
confused one at that). This renders persons like Ken Ham and William
Dembski to be the worst possible sources.
This means only Darwinists disagree with me; that is, when Dembski or
Ham defend natural selection they are, during these moments,
Darwinists. Real Creationists and real IDists do not accept the main
claim of Darwinism. You (or them or anyone for that matter) cannot
have it both ways at the same time. Accepted logic disallows these
propositions.
>
>
> > Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
> > convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
> > but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
>
> How is it "pro-atheist" when so many people that you admit are *not*
> atheists accept it?
>
Natural processes say the supernatural (God/ID) is not involved (= pro-
Atheism). When a person denies Atheism while accepting the existence
of NPs, the latter fact falsifies the former fact.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Variation is not microevolution.
You have confused two separate concepts.
Ray
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> > * Intelligence is a synonym for the Genesis Creator (Arch-Deacon
> > Paley's God):
>
> Again, this is your assumption. You've never been able to demonstrate
> this to be true, or even reasonable. No one but you uses the word
> "intelligence" in that way.
>
The effect of William Dembski and DI nonsense on Darwinism and the
world.
Many Darwinian scholars have lambasted Dembski for insulting everyones
intelligence. Now we can see why he invents these absurdities:
ordinary people buy the propaganda. Intelligence has always been a
synonym for God's intelligence. The fact is basic, elementary,
fundamental and rudimentary.
Ray
[....]
Ray Martinez
The comments, beliefs and opinions of a theological dunce who has no
awareness of his condition. I respond only because our dunce has a
doctorate, presumably in Atheist science.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On May 3, 5:18 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 1:41 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Quite the contrary. The definition (singular) provided is the one that
> > > > will appear in my book/refutation.
>
> > > > The worst definition is allele change. To say mere change at the
> > > > genetic level defines the concept of evolution is loony, if not
> > > > fraudulent. But again: how do you know said change is evolutionary
> > > > (unguided/unintelligent)?
>
> > > We don't know that anything is unguided/unintelligent.
>
> > Then why do you deny the existence of design?
>
> > ToE says the concept of design does not exist in nature; therefore
> > Intelligent agency is not causing biological production. Obviously you
> > need to re-think your response.
>
> The ToE says no such thing. Artificial selection, selection done by a
> known designing intelligent agent, has always been fundamental to
> understanding the basic assumptions involved in evolution that occurs
> in the absence of any known designing intelligent agent. When there
> is evidence for intelligent (or even not so intelligent) modifications
> of life by a putatively intelligent, and observable, agent, the ToE
> accepts it.
Laughable: Darwinism rejects ID.
> And "the absence of any known designing intelligent
> agent" is not a claim that no such agent exists, only that such an
> agent has not been observed.
"The absence of any known natural agent is not a claim that no such
agent exists, only that such an agent has not been
observed." (Something the DI would say.)
More laughable nonsense from our doctorate: the Creation-ID v.
Darwinism debate presupposes mutual exclusivity.
Ray
> One can always, as a matter of faith,
> believe that such an agent exists and is behind anything that actually
> occurs. One can even, as a matter of faith, believe that such an
> agent can and even does things for which there is no evidence
> whatsoever, like the idea of a man rising from the dead or that there
> are aliens behind comet Tuttle come to save us. Did you note those
> two words: 'faith' and 'believe'? That is what you have when you have
> no actual evidence to support a position.
>
> Of course Ray also has intentional ignorance and comically
> disingenuous and inconsistent arguments.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ray
>
> > > It could be that everything in the universe is maintained by large teams
> > > of invisible (and in all ways undetectable) superintelligent badgers,
> > > for example. Or that the brain-in-a-vat idea is really true. If that's
> > > all you've got, your book's going to be really pointless.
>
> > > [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
[....]
>
> > Here is my answer: how can antibiotic resistance, for example, be the
> > work of unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)? Our brightest Ph.D
> > minds have been unable to solve the problem. Are we to believe that
> > unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence? Of course not. Evil
> > Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
>
> > Ray
>
> Actually the brightest Ph.D.s have already solved the problem.
> Mutation produces variation. Selection changes the frequency of
> alleles in a population. They can observe the change in genomes now
> right down to what nucleotides produce the new function. They have
> demonstrated the chemistry of how mutation occurs. They have observed
> experimentally and in nature the consequences for frequency of alleles
> under different selective pressures. They even know how resistances
> can spread "sexually" among bacteria.
>
All this says is to assert that unintelligence (natural processes) are
somehow stumping Ph.Ds.
Your belief is wholly dependent upon illogic. Only Intelligence can
stump Ph.D intelligence, not unintelligence.
> That you don't know this, and thus attribute the changes to fighting
> alternative gods and evil spirits does not put your thinking in the
> modern 21st century. It makes you no different than the African
> christian pastors (better called profits) that attribute evil to witch
> children who then have acid forced down their throats or worse.
>
> *****To the superstitious in Africa, no event has a natural, causal or
> scientific reason.****** Any tragedy – disease, miscarriage,
> unemployment or death in the family – is considered the work of
> witches.
>
>
> I will agree that any Christianity that claims that "no event has a
> natural, causal, or scientific reason" is espousing a perverted
> Christianity. Since you don't believe that there is any natural,
> causal, or scientific reason that can explain the appearance of
> bacterial resistance to antibiotics and attribute it, instead, to the
> purposeful actions of intelligent but evil gods/angels (aka, Satan) or
> witches, guess what I think about your form of Christianity.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your desperate attempt to lump me and my logic with African witch
doctors is pathetic.
Antibiotic resistance has not been solved. It is a real and serious
problem. Unintelligent agencies are not stumping our brightest minds.
That which has no mind cannot be outsmarting Ph.D minds. Your belief,
contrary to accepted logic, proves that you are delusional.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray, microevolution is defined as evolution below the level of
species. So variation in a population, if it results in allele change
over generations, is microevolution.
>
> You have confused two separate concepts.
You are confused, Ray. You can't even define microevolution correctly.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Sure they can. People are quite flexible that way.
> They can only be one OR the other; therefore any "IDist/
> Creationist" who defends the main claim of Darwin 1859 ("On The Origin
> Of Species By Means Of Natural Selection") is a Darwinist (albeit a
> confused one at that). This renders persons like Ken Ham and William
> Dembski to be the worst possible sources.
Actually, Ray, you, or Gene Scott would be worse.
>
> This means only Darwinists disagree with me;
In that case, all those you claim to be "anti evolutionists" are
"Darwinists". You are the one trying to have it both ways.
> that is, when Dembski or
> Ham defend natural selection they are, during these moments,
> Darwinists. Real Creationists and real IDists do not accept the main
> claim of Darwinism.
That means the only "real creationist" or "real IDist" is you, and you
alone, Ray.
> You (or them or anyone for that matter) cannot
> have it both ways at the same time. Accepted logic disallows these
> propositions.
Remember, Ray, you fail at logic, so you have no idea what "accepted
logic" might be.
>
>>
>>
>>> Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
>>> convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
>>> but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
>>
>> How is it "pro-atheist" when so many people that you admit are *not*
>> atheists accept it?
>>
>
> Natural processes say the supernatural (God/ID) is not involved (= pro-
> Atheism).
Wrong again, Ray. According to you, all processes are involving God,
so natural processes cannot say God isn't involved. It's not "pro
atheism" to believe that God is behind natural processes.
> When a person denies Atheism while accepting the existence
> of NPs, the latter fact falsifies the former fact.
Which just goes to show how much you fail at logic. Denying atheism
means a person believes in the supernatural, whether or not they believe
that the supernatural is influencing nature.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No, "Darwinism" explains the facts without adding needless
complications, which ID requires. It's the evidence that indicates
that an evident supernatural being is not required.
>
>> And "the absence of any known designing intelligent
>> agent" is not a claim that no such agent exists, only that such an
>> agent has not been observed.
>
> "The absence of any known natural agent is not a claim that no such
> agent exists, only that such an agent has not been
> observed." (Something the DI would say.)
What do you find wrong with that statement?
>
> More laughable nonsense from our doctorate: the Creation-ID v.
> Darwinism debate presupposes mutual exclusivity.
Note you haven't shown what Howard said is either laughable, or
nonsense. Your own opinions, as poorly thought out as they are, are
not what any debate "presupposes".
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Actually, Ray, he's merely pointing out that you are using the same
manner of thinking. You both use magical thinking, and abandon science
whenever you can't imagine an answer. Note that the persons Howard is
talking about are not "witch doctors" but people claiming to be
Christians.
>
> Antibiotic resistance has not been solved.
What causes antibiotic resistance has been "solved". It's the result of
random mutations and selection causing new organisms that are resistant
to drugs. What hasn't been solved is finding new antibiotics that
will kill the microorganism, and not harm the host.
> It is a real and serious
> problem.
Which evolution explains. Creationism gives no insight, and provides no
basis to solve the problem. If it's all the action of a supernatural
being, there's nothing that mere mortals can do about it.
> Unintelligent agencies are not stumping our brightest minds.
Unintelligent agencies have 'stumped' minds for centuries, and will
continue to do so. Just because you are too prideful to admit you are
wrong doesn't change things.
> That which has no mind cannot be outsmarting Ph.D minds.
Why not? Human intelligence is limited, and what humans can do is
dwarfed by what natural processes are capable of.
Remember that the most common antibiotics were derived from fungi,
who have been in an arms race with bacteria for millions of years. It
wasn't a human who invented penicillin, but a common fungi, Penicillium.
It was produced by that fungi through an entirely unintelligent,
unguided process. Jenner and others merely recognized the effect of
the chemical produced by this fungi.
The bacteria have simply evolved to resist this chemical, like they
have been doing for millions of years.
> Your belief,
> contrary to accepted logic, proves that you are delusional.
Ray, once again, you fail the most basic logic. Trying to claim that
you know what is "accepted logic" is absurd. You know nothing about
biology, chemistry, or microbiology, yet you think you can lecture those
with an education.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Yes, that's what you produce on a regular basis. I didn't think you
were that self aware, Ray.
> I respond only because our dunce has a
> doctorate, presumably in Atheist science.
No, Ray, "our dunce" has only a blind following of a charlatan TV
preacher.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On May 3, 5:27 pm, Dana Tweedy<reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [....]
I notice you've run away from the points I've made above. Apparently
you are too afraid to address those points.
>
>>
>>> * Intelligence is a synonym for the Genesis Creator (Arch-Deacon
>>> Paley's God):
>>
>> Again, this is your assumption. You've never been able to demonstrate
>> this to be true, or even reasonable. No one but you uses the word
>> "intelligence" in that way.
>>
>
> The effect of William Dembski and DI nonsense on Darwinism and the
> world.
Again, Ray, you fail to address the point. No one but you uses the term
"intelligence" to be a synonym for "supernatural being". Your use of it
this way is idiosyncratic, unsupported, and more than a little bizarre.
>
> Many Darwinian scholars have lambasted Dembski for insulting everyones
> intelligence.
Of course, Ray has no intelligence to insult. But since I didn't
mention Dembski, this is irrelevant. The topic here is YOUR misuse of
the term, not Dembski's.
> Now we can see why he invents these absurdities:
> ordinary people buy the propaganda.
Again, where is the relevance here? The only "propaganda" I mentioned
is Ray's own, where he tries to re-define a word that everyone else uses
differently.
> Intelligence has always been a
> synonym for God's intelligence.
Would you like to support this assertion? Where has anyone outside of
theological musing, ever done this? Again, Ray, you assuming your own
delusions.
> The fact is basic, elementary,
> fundamental and rudimentary.
This "fact" is nothing more than your own false, unsupported, and
ignorant opinion. No one in any scientific context uses the word
"intelligence" as a synonym for "supernatural intelligence".
While the religious/political machination known as "ID" may intend
for "intelligent" to be suggest a supernatural influence, even they have
to admit that an intelligent being need not be supernatural.
Why not just admit you are wrong?
DJT
Ernest Major
<e84b91fb-f53c-4c51...@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
Would you be so kind as to clarify your position? Are you claiming that
God is responsible for the development of antibiotic resistance in
previously antibiotic-sensitive bacteria? If not, what intelligent
agency do you ascribe it to?
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Camp
That's a particularly consequential word that you have used there,
Ray. If you are serious about it, if you really mean what the above
"Accepted" implies, then it is a huge step forward in your ability to
put together a reasonable argument. But I'm skeptical.
You see, use of that word indicates that there is at least some small
part of you which realizes you cannot define terms to suit your
purposes, cannot base rebuttals upon premises that no one would agree
with, and should not build arguments about consensus science upon
interpretations of data that are not just heterodox, but downright
bizarre.
You still do all of that, Ray, and it flies in the face of "Accepted
logic." It also undermines any hopes you might have that your thesis
will be taken seriously.
I'm sure you believe that your logic is as airtight as 1+1, and this
would be true were the rest of us using terms, and employing
assumptions, as you do. But here in t.o we're obviously not. And by
your own definitions there are very few (if any) people outside of
this group who think similarly enough to you that it would support a
claim of "Accepted logic."
And that's really the point, isn't it, Ray? You recognize a need for
your arguments to dovetail enough with mainstream thinking to at least
be intelligible, if not persuasive. But your convictions are so
extreme that you have great difficulty developing supporting arguments
that are coherent and lucid.
I sympathize. If I had to maintain such dissonant thought processes
I'd probably go bananas. The only advice I can offer you is to put
more faith in others, and less in yourself. I'd imagine it would be
particularly liberating not to have to believe in your own
infallibility.
RLC
*Hemidactylus*
time is a wonderful model of the power of evolution to mold beings along
divergent paths. And the possibility that size discrepancy between big
and small dogs might represent a nascent reproductive isolation is a
powerful analogue for speciation.
You make the overly bold immutabilist assertion that even your ID
creationist compatriots (=atheists in sheep's clothing) do not support.
All I needed to show was that dogs are very mutable and pliable and thus
you are defeated (=trouble selling book).
Behe is far more capable a scientist and scientifically literate author
than you, judging by the content of your posts here. Behe is not an
immutabilist. Behe crushes you. Give it up before you embarrass
yourself. Oops...too late.
Randy C
>
> You have confused two separate concepts.
It depends on what causes that variation.
Right?
If the variation is due to different diets, for example, then that is
NOT an example of what drives evolution.
But, in breeds of dogs, the variation is due to genetic changes.
If two dachshund breed, you get a dachsund.
If two Labrador Retrievers mate, you get a Labrador Retriever.
Therefore dog breeds exhibit genetic characteristics.
So:
Various dog breeds --> Undeniably shows microevolution.
Q.E.D.
hersheyh
> In message
> <e84b91fb-f53c-4c51-99a9-2856603e8...@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 4, 7:17 am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >[....]
>
> >> > Here is my answer: how can antibiotic resistance, for example, be the
> >> > work of unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)? Our brightest Ph.D
> >> > minds have been unable to solve the problem. Are we to believe that
> >> > unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence? Of course not. Evil
> >> > Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
Please note that Ray is, in fact, saying that antibiotic resistance is
due to "Evil Intelligence (Satan's)." That is the equivalent of
saying that there are witches who are responsible for anything Ray
considers to be bad and another god who is responsible for anything
Ray considers good. Ray is no different from the witch-believing
Christians in Africa. He only differs from his fellow Christians in
Africa (I hope) in not proposing that we burn, exile, or harm children
to propitiate the gods or drive the evil from them. He probably only
wants to stone homosexuals and adulterers to death.
They were not "African witch doctors". They were Christian ministers
who made a living by extracting money from the gullible and exorcising
demons. After all, it is the Bible itself that explicitly states that
Christians (and Jews) should not suffer a witch to live. Exodus 22:18.
> >Antibiotic resistance has not been solved. It is a real and serious
> >problem.
Not every form of antibiotic resistance (there are probably millions
of ways that an organism can produce a toxin) has been analyzed. But
every one that has been analyzed is due to a modified gene or the
acquisition of plasmids with resistance genes. Modification of genes
occurs via mutation. Every modified gene can easily be explained by
known mechanisms of mutation. Do you want some examples?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance
"The four main mechanisms by which microorganisms exhibit resistance
to antimicrobials are:
1) Drug inactivation or modification: for example, enzymatic
deactivation of Penicillin G in some penicillin-resistant bacteria
through the production of β-lactamases.
2) Alteration of target site: for example, alteration of PBP—the
binding target site of penicillins—in MRSA and other penicillin-
resistant bacteria.
3) Alteration of metabolic pathway: for example, some sulfonamide-
resistant bacteria do not require para-aminobenzoic acid (PABA), an
important precursor for the synthesis of folic acid and nucleic acids
in bacteria inhibited by sulfonamides. Instead, like mammalian cells,
they turn to utilizing preformed folic acid.
4) Reduced drug accumulation: by decreasing drug permeability and/or
increasing active efflux (pumping out) of the drugs across the cell
surface.[33]"
There is no mystery about why certain compounds are toxic, either.
They are toxic because they interfere with the normal chemistry of an
organism and they are often related to and modified from chemicals
that are involved in that normal chemistry. What we call antibiotics
tend to be those toxins that are toxic to specific, usually microbial,
pests without being excessively toxic to eucaryotic organisms (namely
us). Typically toxins arise because they are useful to the organism
producing them.
> > Unintelligent agencies are not stumping our brightest minds.
> >That which has no mind cannot be outsmarting Ph.D minds. Your belief,
> >contrary to accepted logic, proves that you are delusional.
So it is not delusional to think that toxins are made by demons and
witches? Which is what you claim is the case. Do you also think you
can drink poisons and handle venomous snakes if you believe in Jesus?
> Would you be so kind as to clarify your position? Are you claiming that
> God is responsible for the development of antibiotic resistance in
> previously antibiotic-sensitive bacteria? If not, what intelligent
> agency do you ascribe it to?
>
He has mentioned Satan. His world, like the African Christians who
believe in witches, is filled with good and bad supernatural entities
that are responsible for everything.
Frank J
During these moments????? So Dembski, Ham, and presumably all the big-
name anti-evolution activist are, in Ray's Holy Dictionary, "Part-time
'Darwinists'?"
Can you name any Full-Time IDist/Creationists other than you and
members of your church?
Is Tony-the-Geocentrist a Part-time 'Darwinist' or a Full-Time IDist/
Creationist?
>
>
> > > Over a two year period I looked into the matter myself. I came away a
> > > convinced fixist. The Challenge proves that microevolution is nothing
> > > but a pro-Atheist assumption/explanation of species.
>
> > How is it "pro-atheist" when so many people that you admit are *not*
> > atheists accept it?
>
> Natural processes say the supernatural (God/ID) is not involved (= pro-
> Atheism). When a person denies Atheism while accepting the existence
> of NPs, the latter fact falsifies the former fact.
>
> Ray- Hide quoted text -
Ernest Major
<2b5eabd6-de4f-4ff2...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
hersheyh <hers...@yahoo.com> writes
Assigning creative abilities to Satan is one of the classical heresies.
>>
>> >Ray
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:72d32838-4639-4e27...@z13g2000prk.googlegroups.com:
Ham and Dembski do *NOT* defend the Darwinian proposition that one
species can evolve into another. There they agree with you.
But Ham and Dembski admit that there is change taking place *within* a
species. They accept that staph bacteria adapted under selection
pressure to become resistant to penicillin. But they hasten to point
out that those bacteria are still staph.
They accept that the beaks of some Galapagos birds change in length over
time, due to environmental pressure. But they point out that those
birds are still of their original species.
That a species can change over time (micro-evolution) has been observed
and documented by actual human experience in the last century. To deny
micro-evolution is to deny modern human experience.
MRSA (methicillin-resistant staph) only emerged in the last 40 years or
so. Where do you think it came from, to become such a scourge today?
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:29b24985-f55e-42e4...@q12g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 3, 1:43 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:8cf2a363-3783-4b25...@t19g2000prd.googlegroups.com:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 2, 4:00 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On May 2, 5:29 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > >news:7000021f-7f7e-4dee...@y27g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > > > > Microevolution: any slight change in species accomplished by an
> > > > > > unguided/unintelligent natural process.
> >
> > > > > > Definition explanation:
> >
> > > > > > 1. "any" = within species and/or macroevolutionary (contributing to
> > > > > > speciation).
> >
> > > > > > 2. "slight change" = Darwinian modification.
> >
> > > > > > 3. "species" = Paley's watches; the subject of Darwin's book "On The
> > > > > > Origin Of Species" (1859); Mayr's Biological Species Concept.
> >
> > > > > > 4. "unguided/unintelligent natural process" = originating from animate/
> > > > > > inanimate material environment.
> >
> > > > > > Because I am very busy writing a book, my time here is limited. If
> > > > > > your response does not receive an answer it is because you failed to
> > > > > > provide positive evidence satisfying one or more proviso.
> >
> > > > > What exactly are you asking us for? To cite an example?
> >
> > > > > I still like this example:
> >
> > > > > 1940: Penicillin goes into mass production and widescale use.
> > > > > Virtually all staph infections can be cured with a single penicillin
> > > > > shot--as long as they aren't too far advanced.
> >
> > > > > 1946: Time magazine reports on the advent of penicillin resistant
> > > > > strains of staph infecting patients.
> >
> > > > > 1960s: Methicillin, and flucloxacillin, new generations of penicillin
> > > > > which still work on most staph, go into widespread use.
> >
> > > > > 1970: MRSA (methicillin-resistant and flucloxacillin-resistant staph
> > > > > strains) appears.
> >
> > > > > 1990: 90% of staph strains are now resistant to penicillin. The
> > > > > first-line treatment for MRSA is vancomycin.
> >
> > > > > 1996: Vancomcyin-resistant MRSA (VRSA) appears.
> >
> > > > > All in a single human lifetime.
> > > > > A Darwinian explanation of this is obvious.
> >
> > > > > What's your explanation of this, Ray?
> >
> > > > > -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > > None of those qualify as "microevolution" according to Ray. Never mind
> > > > that nearly all other anti-evolution activists beg to differ -
> > > > although rarely directly to Ray.
> >
> > > Good example of extreme confusion: this person thinks anti-
> > > evolutionists accept (micro)evolution. If true then said persons are
> > > not anti-evolutionists.
> >
> > From Answers in Genesis:
> >
> > "In the media, textbooks, and scientific literature, the occurrence of
> > evolution has become a fact. The definition of the word evolution has
> > also taken on two different meanings that are not equal. Evolution can
> > be used in the sense of change in a species by natural selection. This
> > is often referred to as microevolution and is accepted by evolutionists
> > and creationists alike as good observational science. This type of
> > evolution allows change within groups but not between groups."
> >
> > http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee2/biological-evolution
> >
> > AiG not only accepts microevolution, they consider it to be good
> > observational science.
> >
>
> I challenge the Darwinists to a most elementary debate and what do
> they do?
>
> Answer: Seek relief from Young Earth Fundamentalists/right-wing
> zealots!
>
> Like I have always said: the Fundies and the Atheists are in the same
> bed. Ham, Harshman and Dawkins! Whattaworld!
>
> The AiG material says microevolution is observable. Darwinists say the
> same thing. I don't see it. But the issue is how do you know causation
> is unguided/unintelligent? What is the evidence? What does AiG say,
> Steven?
>
> And their quote says "This is often referred to as microevolution and
> is accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike as good
> observational science." FALSE. Creationists do not accept evolution
> and evolutionists do not accept creationism. AiG is demonstrably
> confused/deluded since the writer is not aware of the egregious error
> in elementary logic.
>
> Your source is as bad and stupid as they get, Steven. LOL : )
>
> Why don't you use Darwin or Mayr or Coyne? What an idea! Use
> Darwinists to support Darwinism, not Young Earth Fundamentalists! Once
> again : ) LOL : ) LOL!
>
> > Unlike you, they cannot deny changes that have been documented *in
> > modern history*, including some changes *within a single human
> > lifetime*.
> >
> > Among these are:
> >
> > 1. Acquired microbial resistance to various antibiotic and antifungal
> > medications.
> >
> > 2. Changes in the length of the beaks of some of the Galapagos finches.
> >
> > AiG lists both of those as legitimate examples of micro-evolution. They
> > even accept that natural selection was the mechanism driving this
> > micro-evolution.
> >
>
> Then they are Darwinists. And the issue is: what is the evidence that
> these micro changes are caused by unguided/unintelligent agency? What
> is AiGs answer, Steven?
>
> > Do you deny that MRSA is a new infectious threat that we didn't have to
> > deal with 60 years ago? Or if you accept that MRSA didn't exist before
> > the 1960s, then where did it come from?
> >
> > How did we end up with new so-called "superbugs" like VRSA that are
> > resistant to nearly all antibiotics? Where did the superbugs come from?
> >
> > If your book is going to be any good, it has to explain how the advent
> > of MRSA and VRSA occurred *without any evolutionary process*. Because
> > even the Discovery Institute and AiG accept that it *evolved* from less
> > resistant strains of staph.
> >
> > -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Here is my answer: how can antibiotic resistance, for example, be the
> work of unguided/unintelligent natural process(es)? Our brightest Ph.D
> minds have been unable to solve the problem. Are we to believe that
> unintelligence is stumping Ph.D intelligence? Of course not. Evil
> Intelligence (Satan's) is stumping Ph.D intelligence.
I see.
MRSA and VRSA are the work of Satan.
Just like I thought:
Ray, you would have been right at home in the 14th century.
(That's what they thought about the Black Death plague too)
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"Ernest Major" <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:RY7bwBBm...@meden.invalid:
> >> scientific reason.****** Any tragedy - disease, miscarriage,
> >> unemployment or death in the family - is considered the work of
> >> witches.
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/18/african-children-denounce_n_..
> >>.http://www.monstersandcritics.com/smallscreen/news/article_1556141.ph...
> >>
> >> I will agree that any Christianity that claims that "no event has a
> >> natural, causal, or scientific reason" is espousing a perverted
> >> Christianity. Since you don't believe that there is any natural,
> >> causal, or scientific reason that can explain the appearance of
> >> bacterial resistance to antibiotics and attribute it, instead, to the
> >> purposeful actions of intelligent but evil gods/angels (aka, Satan) or
> >> witches, guess what I think about your form of Christianity.- Hide
> >>quoted text -
> >>
> >> - Show quoted text -
> >
> >Your desperate attempt to lump me and my logic with African witch
> >doctors is pathetic.
> >
> >Antibiotic resistance has not been solved. It is a real and serious
> >problem. Unintelligent agencies are not stumping our brightest minds.
> >That which has no mind cannot be outsmarting Ph.D minds. Your belief,
> >contrary to accepted logic, proves that you are delusional.
>
> Would you be so kind as to clarify your position? Are you claiming that
> God is responsible for the development of antibiotic resistance in
> previously antibiotic-sensitive bacteria? If not, what intelligent
> agency do you ascribe it to?
Didn't you read his prior post?
Ray attributed MRSA to the handiwork of Satan.
That's how those folks in the 14th century explained the bubonic plague
too: Satan and his satanic followers (Jews and witches) were causing
it.
Hey, maybe we should deal with MRSA the same way they dealt with the
plague:
Let's dance around the maypole and then go kill some Jews. :-)
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"hersheyh" <hers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2b5eabd6-de4f-4ff2...@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On May 4, 3:51 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Please note that Ray is, in fact, saying that antibiotic resistance is
> due to "Evil Intelligence (Satan's)."
Yep.
> That is the equivalent of
> saying that there are witches who are responsible for anything Ray
> considers to be bad and another god who is responsible for anything
> Ray considers good.
Could be witches, could be the Jews. :-)
> 4) Reduced drug accumulation: by decreasing drug permeability and/or
> increasing active efflux (pumping out) of the drugs across the cell
> surface.
Yes. Bacteria like Pseudomonas can deal with the fluoroquinolone
antibiotics like Cipro--artificial molecules that never existed before
in nature--in this manner. When the bug ingests molecules of Cipro, it
just excretes most of them right back out again, just like it would do
with natural antibiotics.
But if that fails, Pseudomonas is also known to acquire new traits
through horizontal gene transfer.
> > > Unintelligent agencies are not stumping our brightest minds.
> > >That which has no mind cannot be outsmarting Ph.D minds. Your belief,
> > >contrary to accepted logic, proves that you are delusional.
>
> So it is not delusional to think that toxins are made by demons and
> witches? Which is what you claim is the case. Do you also think you
> can drink poisons and handle venomous snakes if you believe in Jesus?
>
> > Would you be so kind as to clarify your position? Are you claiming that
> > God is responsible for the development of antibiotic resistance in
> > previously antibiotic-sensitive bacteria? If not, what intelligent
> > agency do you ascribe it to?
> >
> He has mentioned Satan. His world, like the African Christians who
> believe in witches, is filled with good and bad supernatural entities
> that are responsible for everything.
A position that would have been mainstream in the 14th century.
-- Steven L.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
All this says, that is, Robert Camp's message, is that he finds my
logic incomprehensible.
But the only logic I employed and defended was Aristotelian. The
context was X advocating two diametrically opposing views at the same
time. "X" in this case represents any person who claims to be a
Creationist/IDist while supporting the main claim of Darwinism
(natural selection). In this precise context I invoked "accepted
logic," which refers to Aristotle's "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at
the same time. Is Robert Camp attacking the soundness of Aristotle's
logic? Sure looks this way. I find his complaint incomprehensible.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >>> TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
> >> Oh. I thought you meant "muggle thinking". And it's true that I'm a
> >> muggle. No matter how often I try, the snakes won't talk to me. And I
> >> don't know how many times I've repeated "Accio book", but it just lies
> >> there, mocking me.
>
> > You now have produced 3 or 4 small-talk messages. You are stalling.
> > You have no answers to basic questions.
>
> Could you repeat the basic questions?
At this point they all boil down to one.
Since natural processes originate from animate and inanimate material
environment then, by definition, these must be unguided and
unintelligent absent evidence of guidance and/or Intelligence.
Do you agree?
(And after reviewing the Talk.Origin page on "what is
evolution?" (authored by Larry Moran) my definition of microevolution
is accurate.)
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Imagine that; an Atheist-Evolutionist suddenly seeks relief in Behe.
Like I have been saying, he is a Darwinist. You cannot defeat accepted
logic. A person cannot be two separate and contradictory things at the
same time; that is, a person cannot be an IDist and a Darwinist at the
same time. Hemi's post says Behe is a Darwinist.
Since Behe actually thinks of himself as an IDist, he is proven
confused/deluded. Behe advocates Darwinism (evolution/natural
selection/common descent/human evolution) and IDism without any
awareness of the egregious contradiction (= delusion).
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
False.
Dembski accepts common descent, but not including humans. Ham is as
ignorant and stupid as they come----literally. Why should anyone care
what his particular hybrid views are? Funny how Darwinists seem to
care. They care because they cannot address or refute intelligent
persons.
Ray
> But Ham and Dembski admit that there is change taking place *within* a
> species. They accept that staph bacteria adapted under selection
> pressure to become resistant to penicillin. But they hasten to point
> out that those bacteria are still staph.
>
> They accept that the beaks of some Galapagos birds change in length over
> time, due to environmental pressure. But they point out that those
> birds are still of their original species.
>
> That a species can change over time (micro-evolution) has been observed
> and documented by actual human experience in the last century. To deny
> micro-evolution is to deny modern human experience.
>
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant staph) only emerged in the last 40 years or
> so. Where do you think it came from, to become such a scourge today?
>
> -- Steven L.- Hide quoted text -
Dana Tweedy
> On May 3, 4:16 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > On May 3, 3:32 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> > >>> TYPO CORRECTION: should say "muddleD thinking" not "muddleS thinking."
> > >> Oh. I thought you meant "muggle thinking". And it's true that I'm a
> > >> muggle. No matter how often I try, the snakes won't talk to me. And I
> > >> don't know how many times I've repeated "Accio book", but it just lies
> > >> there, mocking me.
>
> > > You now have produced 3 or 4 small-talk messages. You are stalling.
> > > You have no answers to basic questions.
>
> > Could you repeat the basic questions?
>
> At this point they all boil down to one.
That question being "How can I demonstrate my ignorance of
evolutionary theory yet again?"
>
> Since natural processes originate from animate and inanimate material
> environment then, by definition, these must be unguided and
> unintelligent absent evidence of guidance and/or Intelligence.
All processes originate from an "animate, and inanimate material
environment" If you have any evidence of an environment that is not
material, please produce it.
>
> Do you agree?
Do you understand that unguided or unintelligent does not mean
"random", "disorderly", or "chaotic?
>
> (And after reviewing the Talk.Origin page on "what is
> evolution?" (authored by Larry Moran) my definition of microevolution
> is accurate.)
No, it's not, for the reasons already presented. Unless the "slight
changes" are inheritable, they aren't evolution. There's also no
reason the changes must be produced, or influenced by an
"unintelligent" process.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Ray, he's not "seeking relief". He's pointing out that Behe is better
educated than you are, yet rejects "immutability".
>
> Like I have been saying, he is a Darwinist.
Which is meaningless, as you call anyone who disagrees with you a
"Darwinist".
>You cannot defeat accepted
> logic.
Ray, you would have to KNOW what "accepted logic" is, before you can
pretend to hide behind it. The "accepted logic" of the matter is
that evolution is correct, and creationism is a religious belief.
> A person cannot be two separate and contradictory things at the
> same time;
Sure they can, Ray. You fail to understand human nature.
> that is, a person cannot be an IDist and a Darwinist at the
> same time. Hemi's post says Behe is a Darwinist.
Wrong again, Ray. Behe tries to invoke "ID" to explain complexity in
nature, but doesn't reject the fact that species are not immutable.
>
> Since Behe actually thinks of himself as an IDist, he is proven
> confused/deluded.
Well, Ray, have shown yourself to be confused, and deluded time and
time again. Why would Behe suffer from the same?
> Behe advocates Darwinism (evolution/natural
> selection/common descent/human evolution) and IDism without any
> awareness of the egregious contradiction (= delusion).
Maybe because the contradiction isn't as bad as you seem to imagine.
Behe knows a great deal more about science than you do. Why is he
wrong, and you right?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Maybe he would, if your postings showed any sign of logic at all.
>
> But the only logic I employed and defended was Aristotelian.
i.e, a very poor parody of Aristotle.....
> The
> context was X advocating two diametrically opposing views at the same
> time.
Except that the "opposing views" aren't as opposite as Ray
imagines.
> "X" in this case represents any person who claims to be a
> Creationist/IDist while supporting the main claim of Darwinism
> (natural selection).
Ray, natural selection is part of the mechanism of evolution, but not
the "main claim". You keep misstating what the theory of evolution
says, and you continue to confuse "natural selection" with "natural
processes".
> In this precise context I invoked "accepted
> logic," which refers to Aristotle's "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at
> the same time.
The problem is, Ray, you don't understand what "A" is, and you don't
understand what is "not A". You just use the terms, and refuse to
learn what they mean.
> Is Robert Camp attacking the soundness of Aristotle's
> logic?
No, he's pointing out the unsoundness of your mis-statement of
Aristotle, due to your personal ignorance of the theory of
evolution.
> Sure looks this way. I find his complaint incomprehensible.
That's because you are willfully blind, and won't admit your errors.
DJT