Jump to content
RemedySpot.com
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " kristinmoke " <kmoke@...>

> > >

> > > This is just an article that pertains to this topic. I think

> it's a

> > > good example of how so many accept evolutionary theory as fact

> that

> > > contrary evidence isn't even recognized as such, much less

> > > acknowledged.

> > >

> >

> > I didn't see anything in the article that was contrary to the

> theory of evolution. How does this article imply that the theory of

> evolution is false? All that can be drawn from it is that there may

> be other factors involved in our understanding of how species

> evolve, no? I think that there is a big difference between saying

> that a theory, as we understand it, is 100% correct and final, and

> allowing for the fact that we don't understand completely how it

> works.

> >

> >

> >

> >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The amoeba to man scenario is unproved and untestable. I would not

base any nutritional theories on it. Life is much to complex to have

arisen by chance. We never observe one kind of creature transforming

into another kind, just variation within kind. There are not

transitional forms found in the fossil record. The evolutionary

geologic column from the fossil record is not complete, is not in

order, and contains way too many inconsistencies. Even evidence from

the solar system shows that the earth could not have supported life

for long periods of time, etc.

I suggest we focus on what is observable--human written and oral

history--not eons of the fairy-tail-style mythology.

On 9/1/06, kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -------------- Original message ----------------------

>

> > From: " kristinmoke " <kmoke@...>

> > > > >

> > > > > This is just an article that pertains to this topic. I think

> > > it's a

> > > > > good example of how so many accept evolutionary theory as

> fact

> > > that

> > > > > contrary evidence isn't even recognized as such, much less

> > > > > acknowledged.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > I didn't see anything in the article that was contrary to the

> > > theory of evolution. How does this article imply that the theory

> of

> > > evolution is false? All that can be drawn from it is that there

> may

> > > be other factors involved in our understanding of how species

> > > evolve, no? I think that there is a big difference between

> saying

> > > that a theory, as we understand it, is 100% correct and final,

> and

> > > allowing for the fact that we don't understand completely how it

> > > works.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

I suggest that if this forum is to have any semblance of credibility on any

level, that people who advocate 'intelligent design' as a coherent explanation

of how human beings have come to exist, realize that educated people view them

as religious wackos.

-------------- Original message ----------------------

From: " Brown " <brobab@...>

> The amoeba to man scenario is unproved and untestable. I would not

> base any nutritional theories on it. Life is much to complex to have

> arisen by chance. We never observe one kind of creature transforming

> into another kind, just variation within kind. There are not

> transitional forms found in the fossil record. The evolutionary

> geologic column from the fossil record is not complete, is not in

> order, and contains way too many inconsistencies. Even evidence from

> the solar system shows that the earth could not have supported life

> for long periods of time, etc.

>

> I suggest we focus on what is observable--human written and oral

> history--not eons of the fairy-tail-style mythology.

>

> On 9/1/06, kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > -------------- Original message ----------------------

> >

> > > From: " kristinmoke " <kmoke@...>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This is just an article that pertains to this topic. I think

> > > > it's a

> > > > > > good example of how so many accept evolutionary theory as

> > fact

> > > > that

> > > > > > contrary evidence isn't even recognized as such, much less

> > > > > > acknowledged.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > I didn't see anything in the article that was contrary to the

> > > > theory of evolution. How does this article imply that the theory

> > of

> > > > evolution is false? All that can be drawn from it is that there

> > may

> > > > be other factors involved in our understanding of how species

> > > > evolve, no? I think that there is a big difference between

> > saying

> > > > that a theory, as we understand it, is 100% correct and final,

> > and

> > > > allowing for the fact that we don't understand completely how it

> > > > works.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/1/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> The amoeba to man scenario is unproved and untestable.

You're definition of " testable " is problematic. Atomic theory by the

same definition is not testable either, because we cannot directly

observe atoms. We cannot directly observe history, for that matter

either. A hypothesis is not tested by establishing conditions under

which we can directly observe the very thing hypothesized to occur.

If it were, we would know nothing about biochemistry, let alone how

different organisms arose.

> We never observe one kind of creature transforming

> into another kind, just variation within kind.

That's not true. The axlotl salamander, for example, derived from a

terrestrial salamander that is morphologically very different and is

completely different in lifestyle. The derivation is provable because

it is reproducible through crossbreeding in laboratory environments.

The species can be switched back and forth, and the difference can

essentially be contributed to one gene. But they are distinct species

becuase they would not breed in the wild and because they have totally

different lifestyles. Before evolutionary theory, the morphological

species concept would consider them two separate species.

> I suggest we focus on what is observable--human written and oral

> history--not eons of the fairy-tail-style mythology.

Human written and oral history is not observable. Only the writings

and sayings are.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> On 9/1/06, Brown <brobab@... <mailto:brobab%40gmail.com> > wrote:

>> > The amoeba to man scenario is unproved and untestable.

>

> ³You're definition of " testable " is problematic. Atomic theory by the

> same definition is not testable either, because we cannot directly

> observe atoms. We cannot directly observe history, for that matter

> either.²

>

> This is a very funny, but very true statement. An interesting one. What

> exactly do we mean by ³observe². What exactly do we mean by ³history². This is

> not really a trivial statement. But I¹m a bit drunk, so perhaps it is.

>

> ....

>

>> > We never observe one kind of creature transforming

>> > into another kind, just variation within kind.

>

> ³That's not true. The axlotl salamander, for example, derived from a

> terrestrial salamander that is morphologically very different and is

> completely different in lifestyle. The derivation is provable because

> it is reproducible through crossbreeding in laboratory environments.²

>

> Well, but is it proper to say the we ³observe it². I think not. That may not

> have more than semantic import. But then, if we don¹t observe one creature

> Œtransforming into another kind¹ then we also don¹t observe Œvariation within

> kind¹, as long as we¹re using the usual meaning of Œobserve¹.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks, , for your input.

There are vastly different depictions of findings like Lucy, yet the

public at large rarely delves deeper into differences between the

media claims and the actualities. As a result a religious-like fervor

develops among readership of popular magazines. People see the

fanciful renderings done by artists who make seriously erroneous

assumptions. Little is presented on the Homo sapiens fossils that

have been dated by paleontologists for ages assumed to be equivalent

to Lucy, 3 million years. Of course, hard data that does not support

the amoeba to man model is swept under the rug for religious reasons,

since such data does does not jive with the predominant consensus of

religious humanists.

The religion of evolutionism, and specifically Darwinism, has wrecked

havoc on our digestive systems, especially social Darwinism--the

predominant philosophy behind the great American industrialists of

early last century. Under the philosophy of the survival of the

fittest, social Darwinist industrialists created massive amounts of

degenerated foods for us to " adapt " to. The public has been lead to

believe through giants in advertising, that the newly developed foods

are a part of advanced human and social development (or evolution).

Traditional foods were tagged as rough, less digestible, and fit for

savages, but social progress powered by the newly held interpretations

of Darwinism, made the new foods acceptable to the intelligentsia and

corporate moguls. This happened while the public was made to believe,

little by little, that life adapts to these kind of refinements and

that we are more civilized and are superior to our darker skinned

counterparts. Although it is no longer in fad to openly assert logical

racial conclusions of social Darwinism and eugenics, we are left with

the dietary legacy of evolutionist philosophy and humanist religion.

On 9/2/06, Long <longc@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> >I'm just curious, for those of you who think that evolutionary theory is not

> >correct, what do you make of the transitional species between ape and man? I

> >mean specifically the fossilized remains of some of these creatures, sich as

> >cro-magnan and homo erectus? What about the famous skeletal remains of

> > " Lucy " (Australopithecus afarensis) and the other Australopithecus afarensis

> >specimens who had some skeletal characteristics consistent with humans and

> >others consistent with apes?

>

>

> Lucy is interesting and most of what you see about Lucy in textbooks or

> museums simply isn't true. For instance the Australopithecene had

> distinctly ape-like feet. Supposed life like renderings of Lucy found in

> some museums show Lucy with human-like feet. Lucy had a protruding jaw like

> a chimp. The museum renderings and textbook drawings often show Lucy with a

> flat human-like face. Lucy had a ape's rib cage. Also Lucy's pelvis was

> horizontal, not vertical. Thus Lucy was a quadruped, not bipedal. She was a

> knuckle dragging ape, not an upright human ancestor. Many paleontologists

> (including evolutionists) who have examined her and other

> Australopithecenes have come to the conclusion that Lucy is nothing more

> than a chimp or an extinct species of ape similar to a chimp. No missing

> link there.

>

>

>

>

>

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/2/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> True we do not see atoms, but we observe matter, and presume through

> observation, what matter consists of. We test matter in real time, in

> the present. Matter conforms to repeatability, and therefore can be

> tested to conform to hypotheses.

This is not different than testing evolution in any sense whatsoever.

> A hypothesis based on an amoeba transforming into mankind is a much

> greater leap than saying that matter must consist of smaller parts

> than we can see with the naked eye, or with instruments.

First, there is no hypothesis that states that an amoeba transformed

into mankind. Second, you proposed the criteria of direct

observation. Your subsequent decision that it is acceptable to make

conclusions about the composition of matter without direct observation

but that it is not acceptable to make conclusions about the evolution

of life without direct observation is an arbitrary distinction.

Nothing divides the two except that you believe in the former and do

not believe in the latter.

> It is a very

> simple and elemental presumption that smaller particles exist, and a

> great leap of faith to assert that these particles blindly formed

> complex living organisms.

Blindness and randomness are philosophical points of view, and are not

part of the theory of biological evolution per se. Regardless, your

perception that it is an " elemental presumption " (pun?) that smaller

particles exist is biased by the fact that you accept this theory.

This was proposed thousands of years ago (like evolution) and

confirmed only recently (like evolution). It was not universally

obvious to anyone. It is universally obvious to *us* because as a

society we have elevated the status of atomic theory and subatomic

theory to a position that mass culture including schooling makes

everyone aware of it.

Atomic theory was developed not by observing the structure of an atom,

but by performing experiments and testing different hypotheses. It

led, in part, to the proliferation of all kinds of scientific

developments and understandings. When a theory like this has so much

power to explain things and so much power to lead to new developments,

it strengthens the degree to which people accept it, even without

directly observing the innards of an atom.

Our understanding of genetics is similar. For better or worse, gene

manipulation and its many different products, some commercial and most

academic, has confirmed our basic understanding of DNA as the molecule

of heredity. Evolution had a huge boost in acceptance in the 1930s

when DNA provided a material basis for the heritable variation that

evolutionists, including but not limited to Darwin, had previously

proposed.

As our understanding of genetics has expanded, it is clear that:

-- there is genetic variation

-- there is differential reproductive success associated with different alleles

-- genes change over time

-- these changes can be irrelevant, produce small phenotypic changes,

produce changes that create reproductive barriers between groups of a

species thereby allowing them to diverge separately, or even produce

changes that essentially constitute speciation in a single step.

The fact that we have never seen an amoeba turn into a human, which no

one has ever proposed, does not negate the fact that our molecular

biology *overwhelmingly* confirms all the basic tenets of evolutionary

theory.

> We do observe, for example, various forms of cattle co-mingling and

> producing fertile or infertile offspring, whether in the wild or aided

> by researchers. Yak, Bos, and Bison are considered separate species,

> but they are cross breed. Sometimes as with Yak and Bos (beef

> cattle), the cross is prefered for certain conditions, as in areas in

> Tibet and China. Other times, as with the cross between Bos and

> Bison, the offspring are considered weaker or inferior. But many

> crosses of the same kind of animal produce either infertile or highly

> inferior results which do not continue without human intervention.

You have described two of three possibilities. You left out the

possibility that the hybrids could have greater fitness. This is

confirmed by, for example, the hybrids formed between Townsed Warbler

males and Hermit Warbler females. These hybrids are expected to

eventually wipe out the original populations, and the history of the

spread of the zones of these hybrid birds has been documented.

Certain plant species have been experimentally verified to have formed

from the natural hybridization of other species.

> In

> any case we do not observe an evolution from one less sutable kind of

> animal into a superior form of animal, nor can this be observed in the

> fossil record.

The theory of evolution does not propose that organisms develop from

inferior to superior animals.

> Since the water buffalo cannot interbreed with the above group and has

> a different number of chromosomes, it is not only a different species

> but a different kind of animal. In nature we observe variation

> within kind and co-mingling within kind, but development from one kind

> to another is not observed but rather inferred.

Chemical reproductive barriers are exactly what evolutionary theory

proposes would be one example of reproductive isolation; this is how

the species are maintained as distinct. What you are overlooking is

the fact that genes and chromosomes are not immutable.

> In order for one kind such as monkey to develop into another kind such

> as ape an innumerable amount of conditions would have to be met. This

> non-observed process is what is called macroevolution.

Evolutionary theory does not propose that living organisms are

descended from living organisms of other species. It proposes that

living organisms are descended from a common ancestor. Also, I have

already given an example of observed macroevolution with the axlotl

salamander. (I'm not sure if I spelled that right.)

> In order for macroevolution to possible, many criteria would have to

> be met, according to the literature by evolutionist:

> Mechanisms would have to be required of great complexity so that. It

> is presumed that each trait an animal has is the result of random

> mutations. We do observe mutations in animals, a handful of tens of

> thousands of observed mutations could even be remotely construed as

> beneficial to organisms. But random mutation alone does little more

> than to kill organisms, what more is needed is a sequence of

> simultaneus mutations working in concert to produce beneficial and new

> characteristics.

Again, this has been observed. E. coli, for example, when it has its

lactase gene cut out and is put in a food supply of only lactase, it

will not only mutate a *different* gene to make lactase, but will also

mutate a *second* gene to become a lactose-sensitive lactase promoter,

so that the two genes cooperate. The individuals who make this change

then cooperatively pass the new genes to other members of the colony.

This challenges the view that mutations are entirely random, but it

does not challenge evolutionary theory.

> A mutation that makes an eye socket without the

> contents, for example, would render the organism less worthy, and

> therefore macroevolution would not occur. Making a part of a new

> organ without all fully functioning traits would be useless for

> macroevolution to occur.

You are using a logical fallacy by assuming that each characteristic

has only one purpose. Many developments have multiple purposes.

Sometimes they provide a construct on which to develop further, and

one of the original purposes fades away with time. Or, sometimes the

multiple purposes persist.

As an example, the gene coding for the vitamin D-binding protein,

which is a highly specific carrier for vitamin D in the blood, and

serum albumin, which is a non-specific carrier of many molecules, are

believed to have descended from a common ancestor gene. First, note

that this mechanism is plausible because it is very common and

*observed* for genes to duplicate. Now, serum albumin and vitmain

D-binding protein (DBP) are both made up of three domains. The three

domains in DBP are almost identical to those of serum albumin.

However, the joint at which they meet is rearranged so that the three

domains coming together to form a binding site in a different

orientation, so that DBP is highly specific for vitamin D.

Now, to go on a brief tangent for a minute, the concept is further

validated by the fact that these genes are right next to each other on

the chromosome. In fact, there are several others that all appear to

have these three domains but put together in a slightly different

orientation, and they are all in this one area on the chromosome,

which is where they'd be expected to be if the gene duplicated.

Further, the idea of mutating a gene to make proteins that have highly

specific binding sites for other proteins is observed. This is

exactly how your immune system makes antibodies, and why you become

immune to an illness to some degree once you are exposed: when the

antibody-producing cells replicate after the first time you are

exposed, they engage in " somatic hypermutation, " where they

deliberately use an error-prone system of replication to increase

variation. Those that produce antibodies that bind with high

specificity are encouraged to reproduce by chemical signals, while

those that produce non-functional antibodies -- about two thirds of

them total -- just die. Thus, you wind up with antibodies that are

far, far, far more specific for the antigen than the ones you started

out with.

This is natural selection of cells observed within living oranisms.

It is evolution on fast forward.

In any case, back to the main point: DBP is found in some but not all

cartilaginous fish, and is found in all true vertebrates, so appears

to have first developed in cartilaginous fish, and thus paved the way

for the ossification of true skeletons found in all subsequent

vertebrates.

In any case, DBP has another function: it is involved in the

actin-scavenging system of the blood. Its unique configuration opened

up a separate binding site that also fits well with actin, which is

part of the cytoskeleton -- that is, the skeleton of individual cells.

During trauma, shock, sepsis, and liver failure, cells that die can

spill their contents into the blood. This can lead to clot formation

and can be fatal.

DBP and another protein called gelsolin make up the actin-scavenging

system. Actin is released from dying or damaged cells as filaments.

DBP cannot bind the filaments. Gelsolin has to cut them to pieces --

but if DBP does not bind up the pieces, the will just reform

filaments.

So the two components of the actin-scavenging system are inseparable.

Now if you just looked at the actin-scavenging system and not at the

other function of DBP or its past relationship to the generic carrier

that preceded serum albumin, you would say that this is an irreducibly

complex system, because one protein is worthless without the other.

How could an organism through random mutations evolve two complex

proteins simultaneously, when neither are advantageous without this

system as a whole?

But the question proposed is erroneous, because DBP has other

functions that make it useful in and of itself. Therefore, there is a

strong and very obvious selective advantage of DBP in and of itself,

and the two proteins would not have had to arisen side-by-side in

order to be useful.

>But even then, any new traits or organs

> still do not constitute macroevolution, but those new features must

> then make the new species more adaptable to its environment and it

> must be transferred successfully to successive generations. To do

> this, the new trait must be multiplied in the genetic code

> sufficiently to assure that it will not be bread out of the species.

Again, you are in error. First, an allele cannot be " bred out " of a

species. The organisms possessing it would have to die without

producing. But populations move and travel, and barriers arise in

nature. A common way for new populations to be established that are

genetically distinct from older ones is for individuals with these

rare alleles to colonize new areas. This is commonly observed on

islands where most of a human population, for example, has rare

genetic aberrations, and is of course observed in all kinds of other

species.

> This is just the tip of the iceberg as an innumerable amount of

> processes that would have to occur, but these processes are inferred

> to occur but have never been observed and are highly improbable given

> what we actually observe in living organisms.

They are all observed, and are not nearly as improbable as you suggest

because, contrary to your supposition, they do not all have to happen

instantaneously in order to mediate the immediate transition of one

species to another.

> We do observe that limits to variation are designed into life.

Consistent with evolutionary theory, there are limits to evolution.

> Mutations would be a very poor mechanism for beneficial, new and

> different organs to arise, and mutation alone would have to be

> followed by a great chain of mechanisms, which are also not observed

> to follow a process consistent with macroevolution.

I don't follow. Different organs and tissues all do arise from the

same cell as a normal process of embryonic development. They are not

fundamentally different kinds of cells; they simply have some genes

turned off and other genes turned on. You don't need any kind of

massive set of mutations to make a liver cell distinct from a brain

cell. You just need slight modifications to the regulatory genes that

control the expression of all the others.

> I have touched on

> just the beginnings of problems the amoeba to man hypothesis has

> scientifically. There are many other problems that I can continue on.

There is no amoeba to man hypothesis and your basic presuppositions

and modes of reasoning are all all erroneous, which is why well over

99% of scientists in the relevant fields disagree with you.

> To assume that macroevolution is true because educated people believe

> it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum or appeal to

> popularity.

I have not once used this argument.

> If we were to use that argument for diet, we would

> conclude that the vast consensus of nutritionists must be right, we

> can see where that has gotten us.

I would never argue that.

>Another attack is that alternatives

> to macroevoluton are religious. I have not appealed to any religion

> or creed, but to observation and logic.

I didn't say anything about your religion.

> How this relates to nutrition is that since macroevolution is highly

> unlikely and improbable, many imaginative scenarios regarding what our

> ancestors ate are used to persuade how we should eat currently.

I don't see what difference it makes. How our ancestors ate is

indicative of how we are designed to eat, whether we are designed that

way by God, designed that way by evolutionary context, or whether God

designed us that way by evolutionary context.

> On the other hand, we can piece together observations outside of the

> spurious philosophy of macroevolution from observations from the not

> so distant past where remains have not found their way into

> undetectable dust. There are histories and modern records from

> observers such as Stefanson, Price, etc.

Yes but by your own reasoning we cannot confidently conclude that

Stefanson or Price actually existed, because all we have is books that

are purported to be written by them or pictures that are purported to

be taken of them. It would be a leap of logic to assume that just

because those pictures and writings exist that they constitute a

demonstration of what the majority of people who are educated in their

works believe them to demonstrate. I for one have not directly

observed either Price or Stefanson observing the Inuit or any other

groups.

> Therefore, I assert that the pre-history is highly irrelevant compared

> to historical observation and observable experimentation. Religion

> is not my issue here. So I suggest we not get into that straw man

> fallacy.

Since I did not propose a religious straw man fallacy, aren't you

actually proposing your own straw man fallacy, by construing my

argument, which has nothing to do with religion, as a religious straw

man fallacy? This would be the straw man fallacy fallacy. I propose

we not get into that one either.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/2/06, F. Jewett <mfjewett@...> wrote:

> If you crossed that 100 foot hamster with the many-armed sugar god, what

> would evolve?

It would be fascinating to look at, but sterile.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/2/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> The record shows that these various forms of life co-existed not

> evolved one into another. Homo sapiens, which we are, are amongst the

> oldest hominids found. There is not evidence that we came from

> anything else.

I will say right off the bat that I am not familiar with hominid

evolution and know less about it than you. I'm going to accept your

interpretation of the datings of hominids because I don't have

knowledge of the area, for the purpose of discussion.

That said, if the fossil record contradicts a particular hypothesis of

hominid evolution, then it contradicts that hypothesis singly. The

hypothesis must be thrown out or modified to fit the observations. It

does not somehow contradict the theory of evolution, nor does it

contradict the understanding that hominids did indeed evolve -- which

is a fundamentally established characteristic of life.

> There is often much disagreement among evolutionists as to the dates

> of these many hominid fossils, but by finding, identifying, and dating

> hominid fossils, there is not clear indication that presumed ancestors

> of humans developed into humans and then died off due to their

> insufficiency to adapt. According to macroevolutionary assumptions,

> environmental pressure is applied to a species, the species then has

> to adapt because of insufficiency, and then a more sufficient species

> develops while the lesser species must be cut off or eventually

> extinguished so as not to continue to interbreed with the superior

> species. If the presumed ancestor continues to thrive and survive as

> a contemporary of its presumed offspring, then there is not evidence

> that one was derived from the other.

Your understanding of evolutionary theory is to say the least

incomplete. Speciation is not necessarily a linear progression from

one species to another. A species could diverge into two or more

species that co-exist, and the original species could either continue

to exist or cease to exist, depending on the precise nature in which

the different species were reproductively isolated.

> Unlike repeatable tests done in a laboratory or in a currently

> observable pool of organisms, when a paleontologist finds some

> fossilized bones, he has no concrete way of testing their age or

> lineage or what it gave birth to over presumed eons of time, it is all

> fanciful and imaginative. And the web of fossil findings do not

> demonstrate what came from what, especially when the evolutionary

> literature shows these different " species " co-existed in the same

> periods. We could better say that they lived together and we do not

> have any evidence of transitional forms. " Transitional " infers

> gradual change from one form into another. It ain't there. It is

> fallaciously assumed.

Whether or not there are " transitional " forms depends on what you

accept as transitional. You are right that paleontology is rather

speculative compared to laboratory science. But you suggest that

evolutionary theory is based only or primarily on paleontology, which

could not be further from the truth.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/2/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> The religion of evolutionism, and specifically Darwinism, has wrecked

> havoc on our digestive systems, especially social Darwinism--the

> predominant philosophy behind the great American industrialists of

> early last century.

I would advocate calling that Malthusianism, since Malthus had

developed the idea in an economic context prior to Darwin and was

influential on Darwin, rather than the reverse.

> Under the philosophy of the survival of the

> fittest, social Darwinist industrialists created massive amounts of

> degenerated foods for us to " adapt " to.

Can you provide a single quote from a white bread manufacturer or

other advocate of refined foods showing that Darwinism provided the

basis for their idea that humans could adapt to the refined foods? I

would have thought it's because they figured white bread would sell

better. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm interested to see

whether you can substantiate that.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Equivocation is perhaps the most common logical fallacy evolutionists

make regarding proofs for macroevolution. The standard

macroevolutionary model holds that one species developed into another

species, many times over. Evolutionists readily stress how variants

exist within kinds of bacteria, and how this gives evidence for

macroevolution. This involves the fallacy of equivocation or shifting

terms. Evolutionists commonly refer to variation as micromutations,

or microevolution, then as evolution. In this context there is change

in the DNA, and therefore they infer that this minute genetic change

in a minute organism proves that apes have transformed into humans

over eons of time. Evidence from the fossil record does not help

here, as I mentioned earlier. The equivocation goes like this:

microevolution happens; microevolution is evolution; macroevolution is

evolution; therefore macroevolution happens. This is also the fallacy

of non sequitur--it does not follow. When terms are defined and

examined, equivocation is exposed, and the argument has no substance.

Firstly, microevolution is not macroevolution, that is to restate,

variation is not macroevolution. Again gene swapping amongst

microorganisms is not macroevolution. Microevolution refers to

variation within an organism, which also includes what evolutionists

often call mutations. The evolutionist sifts the term " mutation " from

what is commonly thought of as random deviations caused by say

mutigenic compounds or radiation or malnutrition to mean any processes

of recombination. When gene recombination is referred to as mutation,

we are actually taking about variation within kind of organism.

Variation within kind where there is no new genetic material, just

recombination of already existing genetic material, is as normal and

ubiquitous. But the kind of mutation needed for macroevolution, that

is, the generation of new and unique organs and organisms requires the

generation of new genetic material, not simply, the recombination of

already existing genetic material. So, the word mutation is also

subject to equivocation or shifting terms. The kind of mutation

required for macroevolution, is not observed and does not exist.

Variation within kind does not follow logically to create new kinds

nor is it observed in real time, nor in the fossil record.

Again, there has not been any direct or indirect observation of

macroevolution, that is, we have not observed NEW genetic material

arising, which has also produced a new kind of organism. This is all

inferred through non sequitur and equivocation. In essence, when one

says that humans derived from apes, or apes from monkeys, etc.,

because we observe gene swapping in bacteria or a different colored

variation become dominant in a gene pool, a great leap of faith has

occurred. Equivocation has occurred. Non sequitur has occurred.

Logical fallacy is established.

Just as industry has convinced the public masses, through university

educated evolutionists, that industrialized food is OK, many others of

us through the same kinds of illogical devises have swallowed the germ

to man model. Evolutionism has greatly financially benefited the

Darwinist industrialists and left the masses impoverished of

nutrition.

The evolutionary model is irrelevant to aid in our observations of the

real world. It leads down dark blind alleys, and exploits the

impoverished and nutritionally deficient.

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Yeehaw...picturing the exercise wheel it would need...especially for wearing

off all those carbs....

Sharon

On 9/3/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

> On 9/2/06, F. Jewett <mfjewett@... <mfjewett%40erols.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > If you crossed that 100 foot hamster with the many-armed sugar god, what

> > would evolve?

>

> It would be fascinating to look at, but sterile.

>

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

> Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

>

>

>

--

Deut 11:14 He will put grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will

have plenty to eat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

At 01:55 PM 9/3/06 -0400, you wrote:

>On 9/2/06, F. Jewett <mfjewett@...> wrote:

>

>> If you crossed that 100 foot hamster with the many-armed sugar god, what

>> would evolve?

>

>It would be fascinating to look at, but sterile.

>

>Chris

At least it wouldn't have to worry about child-spacing then.

MFJ

" The great secret that all old people share is that you really haven't

changed in seventy or eighty years. Your body changes, but you don't

change at all. And that, of course, causes great confusion. " ~ Doris

Lessing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Regardless of the philosophy of the original inventor of any specific

denatured food, it is social Darwinism that has fueled mass producton

of those foods. The motives of social Darwinism especially

exemplified in a father of American pragmatism, Dewey and his

cohorts such as Rockefeller, have worked to further the evolutionary

process of society specifically in their interpretation of Darwinism

that has forced people who produce their own foods via traditional

methods off their land, into cities, to vie for a living through

intensive and artificial competition. Socal Darwinism was injected

into the very fabric of industry to justify and guide concentration of

power, wealth and production into the hands of the fittest. American

pragmatism, especially, borne from Darwinistic philosophy, teaches

that the " end justifies the means, " and resultingly has driven massive

production of denatured and unnatural foods with the premise that we

are driving humanity to a new stage of development. So, humanity

INVENTS a great array of destructive devices that often may not come

into play, but the moguls of Darwinistic industrialism bring them into

fruition in disregard for the consequences for the health and welfare

of the masses. This is evolutionary PRAGMATISM at its finest.

On 9/3/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On 9/2/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

>

>

> > The religion of evolutionism, and specifically Darwinism, has wrecked

> > havoc on our digestive systems, especially social Darwinism--the

> > predominant philosophy behind the great American industrialists of

> > early last century.

>

>

> I would advocate calling that Malthusianism, since Malthus had

> developed the idea in an economic context prior to Darwin and was

> influential on Darwin, rather than the reverse.

>

>

> > Under the philosophy of the survival of the

> > fittest, social Darwinist industrialists created massive amounts of

> > degenerated foods for us to " adapt " to.

>

>

> Can you provide a single quote from a white bread manufacturer or

> other advocate of refined foods showing that Darwinism provided the

> basis for their idea that humans could adapt to the refined foods? I

> would have thought it's because they figured white bread would sell

> better. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm interested to see

> whether you can substantiate that.

>

>

> Chris

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>>> > > <snip> I do, absolutely, think that inserting religion as a

> worthy

>> > adversary in a scientific argument is, primarily, the jurisdiction

> of

>> > religious wackos, and I think that they are rightfully mocked and

> scorned.

>> > ----------------------

>> >

>> > I found an interesting website which purports to quote the

> mumblings

>> > of the main intelligent design proponents during the Kansas school

>> > board hearings last year as they tried to identify just what

> science

>> > is behind their " theory. " Also, the author, Lenny Flank, does a

> good

>> > job in spelling out just why this supposed scientific theory of id

> has

>> > never really done any science, for those needing such an

> explanation.

>> >

>

>

> ³It's been a while since I've noticed a post from you. I hope you've

> been well. I agree that whether ID theory as it exists today ought

> to be formally taught in the schools is worthy of scrutiny and

> debate. My concern is a little different- There seems to be

> something of a double standard with teaching evolution. As it stands

> now, you can literally teach that 'we randomly came from nothing'

> which is, in fact, not scientific fact or religiously neutral, but

> rather an atheistic interpretation of the theory being taught as

> fact. Yet other interpretations are demonized as unscientific and

> advancing religious doctrine, the only difference being they have

> theistic rather than atheistic leanings. ³

>

> How in Œgod¹s name¹ is evolutionary theory preaching that we ³randomly came

> from nothing²? It seems to me that this just irresponsibly ignorant. So that¹s

> what Darwin said, in your opinion, and that¹s what evolutionary theory comes

> down to? How in the world could any intelligent person believe that random

> generation, let alone random generation from NOTHING, lead to human beings?

> That is just crazy, religious wacko distortion.

>

> ³Why can't we allow teachers to present the science-for example,

> results of attempts to create organic life from inorganic, quantify

> the probability of it arising by chance, etc- then openly discuss

> various implications and controversial areas-scientific, religious

> and otherwise, and let people decide for themselves? ³

>

> Because that, as you well know, isn¹t science. I¹m simply not impressed by the

> fact that ³attempts to create organic life from inorganic² (LOL ­ this is

> really pretty hilarious) have not succeeded. The fact that we, as human

> beings, do not come close to understanding the natural processes by which the

> universe and life have begun and evolved does not imply to the slightest

> degree that ignorant, superstitious, fools should use it as an excuse to start

> teaching religion (read Christian bullshit) in schools.

>

> You want to believe that some personal god is sitting up there and

> manipulating all of this ­ fine ­ do it in the privacy of your own home or

> church, but don¹t bring this ignorant mumbo jumbo into the schools, and

> personally, I find this idiocy to be rather offensive on a list that is, I

> believe, supposed to be scientifically based.

>

> ³That would be

> no more advancing religion than teaching about different religious

> beliefs and customs (this is still taught, I think?), so long as all

> are represented equally of course²

>

> of course it is. Of course it is. If you want, teach it in a religion course.

> But it is totally offensive that people want to insert this Christian

> fundamentalism into our public education system.

>

> ³. And isn't *that* how we avoid

> indoctrination- encouraging free thinking by presenting

> controversial issues, examining how knowledge from one subject

> applies to others and influences their worldview; challenging

> children to form and challenge their own individual worldviews? What

> are your thoughts?²

>

> Yes ­ you are just so full of it. And yes ­ this IS a personal attack.

>

>

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

> Equivocation is perhaps the most common logical fallacy evolutionists

> make regarding proofs for macroevolution.

Since there are multiple people posting in this thread, it would help

if you would give some indication whom you are addressing.

Additionally, if you are going to implicitly accuse someone or some

people of a logical fallacy, you should indicate who made the logical

fallacy and how.

> The standard

> macroevolutionary model holds that one species developed into another

> species, many times over.

That's correct.

>Evolutionists readily stress how variants

> exist within kinds of bacteria, and how this gives evidence for

> macroevolution.

I have never seen this argument. It would have to be substantially

more developed than this to be coherent.

> This involves the fallacy of equivocation or shifting

> terms. Evolutionists commonly refer to variation as micromutations,

> or microevolution, then as evolution.

I have never heard of a micromutation. Biologists do not refer to

" microevolution; " this is a creationist distinction that has no basis

in molecular biology.

> In this context there is change

> in the DNA, and therefore they infer that this minute genetic change

> in a minute organism proves that apes have transformed into humans

> over eons of time.

I have never seen an argument for evolution presented like this except

by creationists wishing to make a caricature that other creationists

will laugh at or by people who are genuinely unfamiliar with

evolutionary theory.

> Evidence from the fossil record does not help

> here, as I mentioned earlier.

And the fossil record is not the only or even primary evidence for

evolution, like I said earlier.

> The equivocation goes like this:

> microevolution happens; microevolution is evolution; macroevolution is

> evolution; therefore macroevolution happens.

This is awfully different from what I was saying just a few posts ago,

which you have chosen to continually ignore. I pointed out, for

example, that the axolotl salamander is a distinct species believed to

be descended from the tiger salamander. They are clearly different

species as they have not only totally different lifestyels -- the

axolotl is fully aquatic while the tiger is terrestrial as an adult

--but they have very distinct morphologies. The adult axolotl has

GILLS.

Yet, in the laboratory they interbreed quite fine, and laboratory

experiments prove that the difference between them is contributed to

almost entirely by a single gene.

This is a relatively clear confirmation of the " macroevolutionary "

mechanism called paedomorphism, and is an extremely clear confirmation

of the fact that a single-gene change can in some cases produce a new

species with major morphological characteristics that are distinct

from its ancestral species.

> This is also the fallacy

> of non sequitur--it does not follow. When terms are defined and

> examined, equivocation is exposed, and the argument has no substance.

In order to demonstrate an equivocation fallacy, you need to

convincingly demonstrate that the two things being " equivocated " are

in fact not equivalent.

Since species are fluid and not immutable, there is no clear

distinction between " macroevolution " and " microevolution " unless you

can offer one and present a compelling argument why your definitions

are productive.

> Firstly, microevolution is not macroevolution, that is to restate,

> variation is not macroevolution.

No one claims that it is.

> Again gene swapping amongst

> microorganisms is not macroevolution.

That really depends. Trading virulence plasmids, for example, I would

not classify as macroevolution, but there is substantial evidence for

the endsymbiotic theory of mitochondria and chloroplasts, and both of

these are definitely examples of " macroevolution, " by which I mean the

definition that most other people use, which is the evolution of major

taxa.

> Microevolution refers to

> variation within an organism, which also includes what evolutionists

> often call mutations. The evolutionist sifts the term " mutation " from

> what is commonly thought of as random deviations caused by say

> mutigenic compounds or radiation or malnutrition to mean any processes

> of recombination.

These are not the only form of mutations.

> When gene recombination is referred to as mutation,

> we are actually taking about variation within kind of organism.

If you're talking about classical meiotic recombination, I've never

seen that referred to as a form of mutation. It is a source of

variation, but the variation is in what overall total phenotypes are

present, not an increase in number of different alleles. Although

mutation could occur specifically if if the site of recombination was

in the middle of a gene.

> Variation within kind where there is no new genetic material, just

> recombination of already existing genetic material, is as normal and

> ubiquitous.

Yet there is new genetic material introduced, through such mechanisms

as recombination. I would be interested in your alternative

explanation for how genetic diversity arose in the first place if

there is no such thing as new genetic material. How many in number

were the first humans? Evolution (so far) says one male and one

female, and most competing explanations (religious) say the same. If

there were many more than this, none of whom descended from the other,

where did they all come from? If there were only a small number of

people, where did all the genetic variation come from if " no new

gentic material " is introduced?

> But the kind of mutation needed for macroevolution, that

> is, the generation of new and unique organs and organisms requires the

> generation of new genetic material, not simply, the recombination of

> already existing genetic material.

In many cases the distinct morphological characteristics including

organs are modifications of embryonic development, not in the total

number of genes involved in a given organ, but in the regulating genes

that send signals to certain cells to turn on or off certain genes. I

already gave the example of the axolotl salamander three times and you

have not yet responded. It has outer, uncovered GILLS sticking out of

its head in every direction and it is experimentally confirmed that

the tiger salamander, which does not have outer, uncovered gills

sticking out of its head, differs from it by essentially only one

gene, and further that if they are kept together (which they normally

would not be in the wild since the axolotl is water-dwelling and the

tiger salamander is land-dwelling) they can interbreed.

> So, the word mutation is also

> subject to equivocation or shifting terms. The kind of mutation

> required for macroevolution, is not observed and does not exist.

This is exactly where your argument proves empty. You have not

differentiated one mutation from another. You need to define at a

molecular level what makes one type of mutation possible and another

type impossible.

Instead, you are defining the type of mutation by its result. This

would have been valid 100 years ago when we did not known the material

source of heredity and variation, but now that we have a deep

understanding of molecular biology it behooves you to distinguish

precisely what it is that defines one mutation distinctly from the

other.

> Variation within kind does not follow logically to create new kinds

> nor is it observed in real time, nor in the fossil record.

And you are able to maintain this position because you fail to take

into account the example I have provided over and over again. The

reason I keep providing the same example is because you keep repeating

yourself without responding to it, despite the fact that it clearly

and conclusively and entirely refutes your position.

> Just as industry has convinced the public masses, through university

> educated evolutionists, that industrialized food is OK,

I would like to see some kind of poll, survey or study indicating any

kind of association between belief in evolution and the consumption of

processed food. I would expect the exact opposite, because education

level is a predictor both of belief in evolution and in health

consciousness usually.

> The evolutionary model is irrelevant to aid in our observations of the

> real world. It leads down dark blind alleys, and exploits the

> impoverished and nutritionally deficient.

Unless you are trying to study biology.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/3/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> Regardless of the philosophy of the original inventor of any specific

> denatured food, it is social Darwinism that has fueled mass producton

> of those foods.

What does this have to do with biological evolution? I forget how it came up.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Brown

>There are processes by which paleontologists find and categorize human

>and hominid remains. When we examine their finds from top to bottom

>from the fossil record we find that Homo sapiens (and Homo

>sapiens-like), Neandertals, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster are not

>represented as we would expect from the typical college anthropology

>text books. When we cart out the various finds of these different

>groups by ages prescribed to them by paleontologists we find that all

>of these types are essentially contemporaneous. It has not been an

>easy task to find and identify the array of hominid fossils, but upon

>extensive scrutiny, we find that, according to the evolutionary

>timescale,

,

Did you personally scrutinize these fossil records extensively yourself,

upon which you draw your conclusions, or are you getting your info from

another source? If so, which source(s)?

>

>Homo sapiens fossils are dated as old as 3.75 million years (lower

>Pleistocene to Pliocene),

>

>Neanderthals and pre-Neanderthals from 17.6 to 800 thousand years

>(upper Pleistocene to Middle Pleistocene),

>

>Homo erectus and Homo egraster from 6 thousand to 1.9 million years

>(Holocene; upper, middle, lower Pleistocene; Pliocene).

>

>Homo habilis is essentially contemporaneous to Homo erectus.

>

>The record shows that these various forms of life co-existed not

>evolved one into another. Homo sapiens, which we are, are amongst the

>oldest hominids found. There is not evidence that we came from

>anything else.

>

>There is often much disagreement among evolutionists as to the dates

>of these many hominid fossils, but by finding, identifying, and dating

>hominid fossils, there is not clear indication that presumed ancestors

>of humans developed into humans and then died off due to their

>insufficiency to adapt. According to macroevolutionary assumptions,

>environmental pressure is applied to a species, the species then has

>to adapt because of insufficiency, and then a more sufficient species

>develops while the lesser species must be cut off or eventually

>extinguished so as not to continue to interbreed with the superior

>species. If the presumed ancestor continues to thrive and survive as

>a contemporary of its presumed offspring, then there is not evidence

>that one was derived from the other. It is only conjecture and this

>conjecture is inconsistent with paleontologists' own fossil findings

>and their interpretations of the specific findings and dating of the

>individual fossils.

>

>One macroevolutionary model has the sequence of Australopithecus

>afarensis (Lucy) transforming into Homo habilis into Homo erectus into

>Homo sapiens. Lucy was a most complete find of her type and was

>presumed by her discoverers to be 3 million years old. It should be

>noted here that fossils are typically preserved in sedimentary rock

>which cannot be dated by radiometric methods other than carbon dating

>and carbon dating is not used for fossils older than about 6000 years,

>therefore fossils presumed to be older than 6000 years are dated by

>conjecture, there is no solid evidence. And the conjecture used is

>rife with circular reasoning: rocks are dated by presuming the ages of

>the fossils and fossils are dated presuming the date of the rocks.

>Radiometric dating other than carbon dating is used for igneous rocks,

>not sedimentary rocks where fossils found.

Doesn't this then contradict what you wrote above when you claim that all of

these species were contemporaries, some living as long ago as 3.75 million

years (homo sapiens according to your statement above)? If fossil records

beyond 6,000 years old are not scientifically valid, but can only be dated

by circular reasoning, then how do you know there are homo sapien fossils

that are 3.75 million years old?

>

>Unlike repeatable tests done in a laboratory or in a currently

>observable pool of organisms, when a paleontologist finds some

>fossilized bones, he has no concrete way of testing their age or

>lineage or what it gave birth to over presumed eons of time, it is all

>fanciful and imaginative. And the web of fossil findings do not

>demonstrate what came from what, especially when the evolutionary

>literature shows these different " species " co-existed in the same

>periods. We could better say that they lived together and we do not

>have any evidence of transitional forms. " Transitional " infers

>gradual change from one form into another. It ain't there. It is

>fallaciously assumed.

Do you have an alternate theory of the origins of life on earth that you

believe is more scientifically sound than evolutionary theory? Or are you

arguing from a creationist perspective?

>These kinds of macroevolutionary fallacies are often also read into

>nutrition. We cannot see what these fossils ate. except on very rare

>occasion are stomach contents revealed. Often tooth structure is used

>to indicate what a fossilized species might have been eating. Now

>that would hardly help a nutritionist of today to properly infer what

>our ancestors ate in the past. Maybe Twinkies? Even now we are

>discovering how ruminants can eat and thrive on a variety of foods

>that we have not found in their stomachs in the fossil record, so that

>identifying specifics of one's diet by tooth or bone structure can be

>very uncertain.

What variety of foods have ruminants been found to thrive on other than the

typical pasture grasses and other plants they've been found to thrive on?

Suze Fisher

Web Design and Development

http://www.allurecreative.com

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

-----Original Message-----

>From:

>[mailto: ]On Behalf Of Masterjohn

>Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:54 PM

>

>This is awfully different from what I was saying just a few posts ago,

>which you have chosen to continually ignore. I pointed out, for

>example, that the axolotl salamander is a distinct species believed to

>be descended from the tiger salamander. They are clearly different

>species as they have not only totally different lifestyels -- the

>axolotl is fully aquatic while the tiger is terrestrial as an adult

>--but they have very distinct morphologies. The adult axolotl has

>GILLS.

>

>Yet, in the laboratory they interbreed quite fine, and laboratory

>experiments prove that the difference between them is contributed to

>almost entirely by a single gene.

>

>This is a relatively clear confirmation of the " macroevolutionary "

>mechanism called paedomorphism, and is an extremely clear confirmation

>of the fact that a single-gene change can in some cases produce a new

>species with major morphological characteristics that are distinct

>from its ancestral species.

I wonder if this is similar to the case of dogs and gray wolves? Although

dogs are no longer considered a separate species from gray wolves, but do

vary genetically by no more than .2%. Dogs are considered to be descendents

of wolves, domesticatd by humans anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 years ago.

Their genes are traced back to a single female wolf ancestor. They are the

same species according to some geneticists, but morphologically very

different in most cases (think Chihuahua). See

http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wdgenes.htm

Maybe man's best friend is a transitional species? Still basically the same

species as gray wolves, but so damn cuddly! ;-)

Suze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Suze, the Laetoli footprint trails in Tanzania are dated by some

evolutionists to be 3.75 million years old. Forensic evaluation finds

them to be indistinguishable from modern human foot prints. Lucy, by

expert evaluation, has been found to not have been bipedal.

Therefore, from evolutionary evaluations, there is not evidence that

Lucy, dated at 3 million years is a human ancestor. As you can see,

in regards to who came from whom, a whimsical guess by a

paleontologist from one opinion to another on one unsure finding can

keep the evolutionary media flip flopping. On spurious claims rests

evolutionary assumptions.

If you view this video

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/1/real/l_071_03.html

You can see that forensics determines that these foot print fossils

are indistinguishable from modern foot prints. The anatomy, including

arch formation, of the foot is fully formed as a human foot. Even

though Lucy was not bipedal, some have suggested that Lucy was

bipedal, not on her fossil bones but upon these very foot prints

predating her by 600,000 to 750,000 years prior, according to

evolutionist dating estimates.

But remember, aside from the above dates, the way these fossils are

dated is based on circular reasoning, a logical fallacy. The fossils

are dated based on the assumption of how old the rocks are, and the

rocks are dated on the assumption of how old the fossils are.

Radiometric dating is not used to evaluate such sedimentary rocks, but

rather igneous rocks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The presumption that there are gill slits in fetal forms of mammals

has been disbanded by knowledgeable evolutionists. The slits have no

evidence that they have any function except to develop into organs of

the larynx. Therefore they are not vestigial as asserted by earlier

proponents of evolution. Sadly, this assertion is still in high

school and college textbooks.

Whatever your purpose for bringing up your salamander example, it is

irrelevant in proving macroevolution, since speciation happens by

entirely different mechanisms than the mechanisms that would be

required to develop one kind of organism into another, as already

mentioned and as explained a little further below.

For you to assert that metamorphosis is evolutionary transformation

shows a misunderstanding of fundamental principles of macroevolution

as required for it to happen. All the genetic material for the

transformation of metamorphosis is present in the organism undergoing

the transformation whether butterfly or frog. In order for

macroevolution to occur, new genetic material must be introduced into

offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of

genes, but entirely new genetic material. Embryologic recapitulation,

that is, the assertion that development from fetal form to adult form

follows evolutionary development and displays vestiges of that

development was abandoned some time ago by mainstream evolutionists.

Your salamander likewise shows developments from existing genome not

from new genetic material.

If you read my previous posts carefully you will not find that I have

NEVER denied the occurrence of speciation, just macroevolution. I

understand my own views well enough not to misstate this point.

Speciation happens when gene pools of the same species become isolated

so that they appear to not interbreed. Often, evolutionists jump to

the conclusion that a truly new species has developed while it has

been observed that new separate species have again bred together. I

will say that speciation occurs as observed by researchers, but

according to evolutionary philosophy, speciation is not macroevoluton,

but rather far from it. Often speciation is called microevolution,

and I will agree to use the same term, but it is really a fancy name

for what is better called variation. But these observed variations

whether termed microevolution, or speciation are not the result of a

mechanism which creates new genes in a macroevolutionary sense, but

rather these are the result of recombining of genes. Speciation is not

a mechanism for macroevolution, it is just a way that nature resorts

the gene pools. Incidentally, speciation has been shown in cases not

to be permanent. There is an instance, and I expect there to be more

instances, where observations of new and distinct species turned out

so that new species re-bred with one another, showing that they were

not new species anymore. In order for macroevolution truly occur,

re-breeding of the new species must not occur and new genetic material

must come into existence creating traits that improve survivability

for subsequent generations of new kinds of organisms. There is no

mechanism for this kind of non-recombinant mutation creating new

features and characteristics. Many more factors than what are

observed must occur for macroevolution to occur and produce new kinds

of organisms.

A kind can be defined as a distinct group of organisms which share the

ability breed and produce fertile or infertile offspring . Species

has more than one definition. One is that separate species cannot

produce fertile offspring upon breeding. Another definition is that a

species is a group of a kind of organism that IS NOT CURRENTLY

breeding in nature. Yet it has been shown that what were once thought

of as separate species have been able to breed and produce fertile

offspring under the right environmental conditions, such as has been

discovered among certain birds.

I do not simply claim that macroevolution cannot occur because there

are too many changes that must simultaneously occur, but that NO

ACTUAL GENETIC CHANGE is happening in species which makes NEW GENETIC

MATERIAL for macroevolution to occur. The mechanism does not exist

for new and beneficial material, only recombination. The mechanisms

that provide for speciation through the recombination of already

existing genes, are extremely deficient to produce new kinds through

macroevolution.

On 9/3/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> > The salamander is another example of what I have been referring to.

> > One kind of organism has not developed into another kind of organism.

> > This is a prime example of evolutionist non sequitur.

>

> Then it behooves you to explain a logically consistent definition of

> " another kind of organism. " Your current definition is that anything

> that turns into anything else is by definition the same kind of

> organism. Thus, it is unsurprising that you can successfully use this

> definition to argue that no organism has developed into another kind

> of organism.

>

> That you can consider a transition from a terrestrial life to an

> aquatic life, from the use of primitive air sacs to external gills to

> not be a change to " another kind of organism " defies my sensibilities.

>

> > Many unobserved

> > assumptions come into play to assert that microorganisms transformed

> > into humanity when a phenomenon is observed,

>

> You would do well to focus. The purpose of bringing up the axolotl

> was not to illustrate how microbes develop into humans. It was to

> demonstrate how a single-gene change can result not only in

> speciation, but the transition to a fundamentally different way of

> life and strikingly different morphological characteristics.

>

> I would like to stick to the issue at hand until we have resolved it,

> rather than endlessly return to your own concept of amoebas morphing

> into humans.

>

> > which is often termed

> > speciation, that is, the reproduction of characteristics already laden

> > in the genetic code and expressed through recombination.

>

> So you admit that speciation can occur without large numbers of genetic

changes!

>

> Just one or two posts ago you were arguing that to transfer from

> species to species requires massive amounts of genetic changes to all

> happen simultaneously, and now you argue that speciation can occur

> without any mutations at all.

>

> Thank you for half-correcting your erroneous position.

>

> > In the case

> > of the salamander, this is not the case in which organs are being

> > formed from additional genetic material but from recombinant genetic

> > material already in existence.

>

> Obviously the fact that ALL of the axolotl salamanders are axolotl and

> ALL of the tiger salamanders are tiger salamander shows that they are

> distinct species. You could argue that it is an inherent part of the

> tiger salamander to ever so often morph into an axolotl salamander,

> but I think you would need to show that this actually happens to

> substantiate it. As far as I know, this gene is not just popping up

> in 1 of 100 tiger salamanders. The axolotl gene is found in tiger

> salamanders when they breed them in the laboratory.

>

> This is all entirely missing the point: the very fact that speciation

> can occur without all kinds of complex mutations happening

> simultaneously demonstrates how easy it is for speciation to occur.

> Gene flow is blocked between the two species in all but the

> laboratory; therefore, over time any mutations that develop will

> develop and accumulate within and not between the two species.

>

> Moreover,

> > As much as evolutionist would like to

> > minimize the importance of this distinction,

>

> I would like to emphasize it.

>

> > it is really a major crux

> > of macroevolutionary assertions. We routinely observe recombination

> > of already existing genetic material, but the evolutionist again

> > equivocates, since, for macroevolution to occur, increases in new

> > genetic material, not recombination, must occur, and there is no

> > observation for this increase of genetic material, it is unmerited

> > presumption.

>

> So you claim on the one hand that to transform between different

> " kinds " of animals is impossible because it would take too many

> simultaneous mutations; on the other hand, you claim that the

> formation of one " kind " of animal from another " kind " happens so

> easily that it cannot be equated to macroevolution.

>

> > In theory, macroevolution to occur, stress is placed on the organism,

> > and simultaneously, random genetic aberration, not simply

> > recombination, must occur for new organs to form for which there was

> > no genetic material preexisting for that new organ.

>

> You have almost no familiarity with evolutionary theory. What sources

> have you read that are not creationist caricatures of evolutionary

> theory?

>

> >If, as with some

> > forms of speciation, recessive genes then come into play that were

> > held back in expression because of some kind of environmental factors,

> > then this is not even remotely akin to macroevolution since the

> > complex function already existed in recessive form.

>

> This is incorrect, because the new form can be used for a different

> purpose. In this case, the capacity to have gills is related to a

> salamnders infantile aquatic form. They are lost when the salamander

> reaches maturity. The axolotl's gills are retained for life and used

> to lead an aquatic lifestyle post-maturity. Humans possess gill-like

> structuers as embryos, but this does not mean we have some kind of

> recessive trait for gills, such that if you observed a human who had

> gills and became aquatic you would suggest that the human was just

> like all the others.

>

> > Therefore, such

> > speciation only shows preexisting complexity, not a greater step in

> > macroevolutionary development.

>

> The most important thing it shows is not the morphology: it is the

> dramatic change in lifestyle that leads to reproductive isolation, and

> thus sets the stage for the separate accumulation of genetic

> mutations.

>

> Since, as is abundantly evident, genetic mutations occur.

>

> > There is no additional genetic

> > development as would be required for macroevolution.

>

> Rather, you argue that macroevolution can occur without " additional

> genetic development. "

>

> >All this proves

> > is that complexity already existed in the genes of the salamander to

> > produce a characteristic. No macroevolution under that rock, only

> > variation within kind, which demonstrates limitations preexisting in

> > the genome. Apes are still apes. Monkeys are still monkeys. Humans

> > are still humans. Bacteria are still bacteria. Salamanders are still

> > salamanders. The universality of these principles is clear except for

> > those repressed by a vast web of unobserved evolutionary assertions.

>

> Really. So a human with fins and gills would by your definition,

> then, be " still human, " and this would be clear to anyone who isn't

> repressed by unobserved assertions.

>

> That's fascinating, and I truly mean it.

>

> Chris

>

> --

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Suze, thanks for your questions, please see my thoughts below.

On 9/3/06, Suze Fisher <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

> ,

>

> Did you personally scrutinize these fossil records extensively yourself,

> upon which you draw your conclusions, or are you getting your info from

> another source? If so, which source(s)?

The issue of origins has interested me for over 20 years. I have

taken classes at college and university and read on the subject. My

son now discusses his findings with me. There are multiple sources,

but the logic or lack thereof behind the grand story of evolution

especially interests me.

> >Radiometric dating other than carbon dating is used for igneous rocks,

> >not sedimentary rocks where fossils found.

>

> Doesn't this then contradict what you wrote above when you claim that all of

> these species were contemporaries, some living as long ago as 3.75 million

> years (homo sapiens according to your statement above)? If fossil records

> beyond 6,000 years old are not scientifically valid, but can only be dated

> by circular reasoning, then how do you know there are homo sapien fossils

> that are 3.75 million years old?

Sorry that I was not more clear on this issue. Let me say that I do

not believe that the ages given by evolutionists for these sedimentary

layers can be accurate due to the circular reasoning used. But for

logic's sake, if the dates were accurate, then, by their own claims,

when scrutinized, these various supposed ancestors of homo sapiens

were contemporaneous with Homo sapiens, which would disqualify them as

de facto ancestors of Homo sapiens.

> >have any evidence of transitional forms. " Transitional " infers

> >gradual change from one form into another. It ain't there. It is

> >fallaciously assumed.

>

>

> Do you have an alternate theory of the origins of life on earth that you

> believe is more scientifically sound than evolutionary theory? Or are you

> arguing from a creationist perspective?

I really like your question on this issue. At this point I would like

to say that my position is that the evolutionary model is fatally

flawed. My main point is that since it is fatally flawed, we should

not use the evolutionary model to explain how we are supposed to eat,

instead we should use observational and experimental science based on

what we can actually verify in real time. You may notice that I am

not mentioning a creator or intelligent design. I believe that the

flaws in evolutionary logic stand for themselves and that an

alternative to evolution is not required to argue against evolution.

>

>

>

>

> >our ancestors ate in the past. Maybe Twinkies? Even now we are

> >discovering how ruminants can eat and thrive on a variety of foods

> >that we have not found in their stomachs in the fossil record, so that

> >identifying specifics of one's diet by tooth or bone structure can be

> >very uncertain.

>

> What variety of foods have ruminants been found to thrive on other than the

> typical pasture grasses and other plants they've been found to thrive on?

Ruminant nutrition is very fascinating to me and is of special

interest to me. Of course, fresh grasses that are of good

palatability are unparalleled for cattle nutrition, but goats prefer

browse over succulent grasses. Goat require higher concentrations of

minerals than do cattle, and their digestive system is shorter. Goats

also have a greater inclination for parasitism than do cattle,

therefore they prefer the tops of grasses or other lower plants and

the leaves of shrubs over succulent grasses, which can harbor larval

forms of parasites when moist with dew. Of course, the taste

preferences goats have tend to be different, which makes them thrive

on browse rather than on graze. Goats tend to be more on the move

when eating, this fits with the tendency for browse to be more spread

out than succulent grasses. All these preferences would not be

inferred from an evolutionary model of studying fossilized bones. We

know these things from people who have extensively observed the

behaviors of living animals.

Cows can thrive on domesticated plants. Corn as a grass is one of the

most interesting non-traditional forages, for example. As long as

corn has not tasseled or started to form the grain, the leaves of corn

offer fabulous nutrition. The leaves are grazed, not the stock. Beef

cattle have been shown to gain up to 4 pounds per day on corn as

grass, while traditional grasses of the right type rarely produce over

2 pounds of gain per day. For beef cattle to finish properly on grass

for flavor and marbling, at least 1.7 pounds of gain must be acquired

daily for several weeks, otherwise the meat can revert to being tough

and tasteless. Of course, substantial nutritional benefits of

grassfed meat are in the fat--that is, in the omega 3 fatty acids,

vitamin E and other compounds. When grazed on corn grass, the

volatile fatty acids are there as with the more traditional grasses.

There are other non-traditional forages that cattle can graze as well.

These fabulous observations and experimental discoveries could never

have been known based on any evolutionary interpretation of the

skeletal remains of bones and teeth of ruminants. In the same way,

evolution does not aid in discovering what is good for humans to eat,

but it leads down blind paths of circular reasoning.

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Deanna,

IMO, politics and religion are both implied with evolution.

Wanita

And hello favorite moderator, Wanita. I have to feel a bit sheepish

flying no tag for a discussion such as this one. Is NN still

requiring OT or POLITICS for such a discourse? Please advise so that

I may comply.

Deanna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

,

> The presumption that there are gill slits in fetal forms of mammals

> has been disbanded by knowledgeable evolutionists. The slits have no

> evidence that they have any function except to develop into organs of

> the larynx.

I think maybe you are misunderstanding me. Although Haeckel's

distortions of embryonic development to assert is erroneous theory

that all organisms " recapitulate " their evolutionary history through

their embryonic development has disbanded because it was proven wrong

by evolutionary science, no embryologists deny that the series of

slits in the embryo that precede the development of gills in fish

exist in all vertebrates and in, for example, humans, develop into

various structures of the face, neck, throat, and airways.

> Therefore they are not vestigial as asserted by earlier

> proponents of evolution. Sadly, this assertion is still in high

> school and college textbooks.

The fact that the gill slits lead to other structures rather than to

functional gills has nothing to do with whether they reflect a genetic

capacity to produce gills. The genetics of embryology are fairly well

established enough for us to understand that the course of direction

that embryonic development takes is guided by certain regulatory genes

that exert signaling molecules that direct the placement of structures

and the development of those structures. Thus, the question that

arises from the gill slits -- or whatever you want to call them -- is

not whether or not humans are similar to fishes during a period of

their development, but WHY all vertebrates possess these slits at one

stage and why the same type of slits would be used by the embryo to

produce structures that are widely disparate in morphology and

function.

This is besides the point. I did not bring up the gill slits, gill

arches, pharyngeal slits, or whatever you want to call them, in order

to claim that humans have vestigial gills. Instead, I was pointing

out that you cannot conflate the presence of one structure at one

stage of development with the presence of that structure at all stages

of development.

If you insist on ignoring the similarities between embryonic gill

slits among vertebrates, instead take the example of the tail: human

embryos have a tail. Therefore, the genetic capacity to keep a tail

is there, if the genes controlling for the elimination of the tail

were to alter their activity. Yet, if you saw adult humans with

tails, you would not insist that they were no different from their

non-tailed counterparts simply because " no new genetic material " was

required to produce the tail, already existing at an earlier stage of

life.

> Whatever your purpose for bringing up your salamander example, it is

> irrelevant in proving macroevolution, since speciation happens by

> entirely different mechanisms than the mechanisms that would be

> required to develop one kind of organism into another, as already

> mentioned and as explained a little further below.

I am trying to suggest that an aquatic animal is a " different kind "

from a terrestrial animal, and that an animal that respires through

external gills is a " different kind " of animal than one who respires

through lung-like air sacs. I do not see how you can remain

unresponsive to this fact.

However, I see that you now acknowedge speciation. Is this correct?

> For you to assert that metamorphosis is evolutionary transformation

> shows a misunderstanding of fundamental principles of macroevolution

> as required for it to happen.

Macroevolution is not defined by mechanisms. Macroevolution as

defined by most evolutionists is the development of large taxa, while

macroevolutionists, as defined by most creationists, if I understand

them correctly, is the development even of different species, which

most of them deny. Exactly how macroevolution occurs is a different

question from whether it occurs. Obviously the questions are related,

but they are still distinct.

Instead, you are conflating them and using this conflation to say that

because macroevolution requires genetic changes that would be

impossible, all speciations involving large differences in way of life

or morphology are not examples of macroevolution because they occur

through mechanisms that are possible.

If it turned out that " macroevolution " could occur through some

different mechanism than those through which it is currently posited

to occur, this would not refute the contention that macroevolution

occurs; it would simply refute or modify our understanding of how it

occurs.

> All the genetic material for the

> transformation of metamorphosis is present in the organism undergoing

> the transformation whether butterfly or frog.

There is no metamorphisis in the axolotl. This is the point: whereas

most other salamanders have the capacity to live in the water only at

the beginning of their lives and then lose this capacity, the axolotl

does not lose it. Amphibians need to have some capacity to live in

the water early on, because their eggs do not have a way to contain

the water needed for embryonic development, and therefore must be laid

in an aquatic environment. They are, however, terrestrial animals

because once they mature from this stage, they lead their reproductive

lives on land. By contrast, the axolotl hangs out in the water, and

looks like a cartoon of a fish except with external gills sticking out

everywhere instead of internal gills.

So the issue is a lack of metamorphisis. The adult salamanders from

which the axolotl is proposed to have been derived do not have these

gills and they do not live in aquatic environments.

> In order for

> macroevolution to occur, new genetic material must be introduced into

> offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of

> genes, but entirely new genetic material.

First, this is erroneous reasoning as pointed out above, because you

are conflating the mechanism with the result.

Second, by insisting that recombination does not lead to new genetic

material, you are overlooking two things: first, since genes act in

synergy, recombination can result in a new *combination* of genes that

presents a certain phenotype not presented by all earlier combinations

of genes; second, recombination in which only parts of genes are

recombined leads to new genetic material.

>Embryologic recapitulation,

> that is, the assertion that development from fetal form to adult form

> follows evolutionary development and displays vestiges of that

> development was abandoned some time ago by mainstream >evolutionists.

If didn't say anything about recapitulation or advocate it in any way

in my last post.

> Your salamander likewise shows developments from existing genome not

> from new genetic material.

Again, the tiger salamanders only express this phenotype when they are

bred with axolotls in the laboratory.

(By the way, this refutes your earlier contention that hybrids of

species cannot form and be fit, although I already refuted it with the

example of hybrid warbler species, to which you did not respond.)

If the tiger salamanders do not exhibit this phenotype in the wild,

obviously they either 1) do not possess this genetic material or 2)

the allele necessary for speciation is recessive and so infrequent in

the population that only in great rarity do two individuals of

opposite sexes form in close proximity who each are homozygous for the

speciation trait and can therefore mate.

You have not shown one or the other to be the case, although your

argument implies that #2 is the case, which you do not substantiate.

#2 does not in any way refute the speciation event or change the

dramatic difference in modes of life or morphology between the two

species. Nevertheless, let us consider your " no new genetic material "

contention as if it were pertinent:

If this rare, recessive allele has *always* existed in the salamander

population, where did it come from?

The current explanation is that all existing genes exist because of

the replication of pre-existing genetic material, and that they differ

because of mutations made to pre-existing genetic material -- i.e.,

the development of " new genetic material. "

If you are going to deny this, it behooves you to offer an alternative

explanation. How, then, do you explain the existence of the recessive

allele?

The only alternative explanation I can think of off the top of my head

is that the salamanders were created ex nihilo. This is not because

I'm appealing to the " religion logical fallacy " that you had

previously identified, but because I'm not aware of other competing

explanations -- please fill me in if they are out there.

Now, what do you estimate to be the frequency of this recessive

allele? How many salamanders did God have to simultaneously create in

order to establish this pre-existing allelic frequency so that " no new

genetic material " would have to be introduced in order to lead to the

current allele frequency?

(If all but two of them were wiped out in a great flood, this would

further make an explanation for the allelic frequency troublesome.)

> If you read my previous posts carefully you will not find that I have

> NEVER denied the occurrence of speciation, just macroevolution. I

> understand my own views well enough not to misstate this point.

> Speciation happens when gene pools of the same species become isolated

> so that they appear to not interbreed. Often, evolutionists jump to

> the conclusion that a truly new species has developed while it has

> been observed that new separate species have again bred together.

Thus proving the difficulty of defining a " species " -- something that

would be much easier if genetic material were not fluid.

> I

> will say that speciation occurs as observed by researchers, but

> according to evolutionary philosophy, speciation is not macroevoluton,

> but rather far from it. Often speciation is called microevolution,

> and I will agree to use the same term, but it is really a fancy name

> for what is better called variation. But these observed variations

> whether termed microevolution, or speciation are not the result of a

> mechanism which creates new genes in a macroevolutionary sense, but

> rather these are the result of recombining of genes.

The difference is a moot point. If recombining of existing genes

leads to speciation that results in fundamentally different modes of

life and different morphology, and then results in the isolation and

ability to accumulate new genetic material over time that is not

shared with the species from which one species diverged, then this

provides a mechanism for further divergence.

> Speciation is not

> a mechanism for macroevolution, it is just a way that nature resorts

> the gene pools. Incidentally, speciation has been shown in cases not

> to be permanent. There is an instance, and I expect there to be more

> instances, where observations of new and distinct species turned out

> so that new species re-bred with one another, showing that they were

> not new species anymore.

This further proves the point: the border between one species is not

definite; the category of " species " is fluid due to the fluid nature

of the genome.

>In order for macroevolution truly occur,

> re-breeding of the new species must not occur

You are creating a completely unfalsifiable position:

In order for speciation or macroevolution to be directly " observed, "

to your satisfication, it must be observed over a short period of

time, because we only live for a short period of time to observe such

instances. By contrast, the mechanisms of speciation as we understand

them would not lead to immediate gametic barriers. Therefore, it

would be expected to take a very long time for these gametic barriers

to develop and sometimes they will not, the original non-gametic

reproductive barriers will reduce or cease, and the species will

re-converge.

The ability of two species to interbreed shows how close they are and

compellingly suggests that they recently emerged from what was one

species relatively recently. So to prove an event of " macroevolution "

that is directly observable requires showing that these closely

related species can interbreed and therefore come from the same gene

pool. But then you further claim that it is not true macroevolution

unless gametic barriers are present, which could take long periods of

time to develop, or might not even develop at all if the species are

sufficiently isolated by other means.

There is therefore no way to prove your contention wrong by your standard.

But because your standard is arbitrary, its inability to be proven

wrong says nothing about your correctness, and is instead a commentary

about the unscientific nature of your argument.

>and new genetic material

> must come into existence creating traits that improve survivability

> for subsequent generations of new kinds of organisms.

Again, if the allele for the aquatic form of salamander was never " new

genetic material " then where did it come from?

It behooves you to offer an alternative explanation.

>There is no

> mechanism for this kind of non-recombinant mutation creating new

> features and characteristics.

Of course there is: mobile genetic elements, gene duplication, point

mutations, double-strand breaks, specialized hypermutative replicatory

systems; site-specific recombination.

> Many more factors than what are

> observed must occur for macroevolution to occur and produce new kinds

> of organisms.

> A kind can be defined as a distinct group of organisms which share the

> ability breed and produce fertile or infertile offspring .

Axolotl and tiger salamanders do not form a distinct group, and they

do not to my knowledge interbreed except when given the opportunity to

do so in a laboratory environment.

Most reasonable people would conclude that if gametic barriers can

develop (which you acknowledge by acknowledging " microevolution "

speciation) and that if dramatic changes in morphological

characteristics and modes of life can develop, that the two could also

occur together. If you contend otherwise, you need to provide an

explanation.

> Species

> has more than one definition. One is that separate species cannot

> produce fertile offspring upon breeding. Another definition is that a

> species is a group of a kind of organism that IS NOT CURRENTLY

> breeding in nature. Yet it has been shown that what were once thought

> of as separate species have been able to breed and produce fertile

> offspring under the right environmental conditions, such as has been

> discovered among certain birds.

Proving the fluidity of species and the resultant difficulty of defining them.

> I do not simply claim that macroevolution cannot occur because there

> are too many changes that must simultaneously occur, but that NO

> ACTUAL GENETIC CHANGE is happening in species which makes NEW GENETIC

> MATERIAL for macroevolution to occur.

Again, in order to be taken seriously, you need to provide an

alternative explanation for genetic variance.

Further, you need to explain away the mountain of evidence that

molecular biologists have uncovered for all the many ways in which new

genetic material is introduced.

> The mechanism does not exist

> for new and beneficial material, only recombination.

If the results of recombination are new and beneficial, then

recombination is a mechanism for new and beneficial material.

> The mechanisms

> that provide for speciation through the recombination of already

> existing genes, are extremely deficient to produce new kinds through

> macroevolution.

Yet they can cause the development of an aquatic animal that breathe

through gills from a terrestrial animal that breathes through

primitive lungs.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/3/06, kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

> Why can't we allow teachers to present the science-for example,

> results of attempts to create organic life from inorganic, quantify

> the probability of it arising by chance, etc- then openly discuss

> various implications and controversial areas-scientific, religious

> and otherwise, and let people decide for themselves? That would be

> no more advancing religion than teaching about different religious

> beliefs and customs (this is still taught, I think?), so long as all

> are represented equally of course.

I am all for teaching alternative theories, in part because I think

that it is much more important for kids to be taught critical thinking

and analytical skills than to be taught " facts " to memorize.

Nevertheless, these have to be taught within the context of what is

actually reasonable. You cannot represent " equally " every theory,

because there is no shortage of quackery.

I think that irreducible complexity would make a useful classroom

discussion. Although the argument is essentially pseudoscience, it is

an excellent way to address why complex systems are not irreducible.

In either case, a classroom discussion on complex biochemical systems

and the arguments for and against irreduciblity would be of value.

Since the lesson would mostly focus on things that are actually true

-- for example, the actual details of the biochemical system -- then

there is educational value from the factual perspective as well as the

analytical perspective.

On the other hand, presenting calculations of probabilities of life

arising by chance has zero educational value and will only serve to

obfuscate the science and perpetuate fundamental misunderstandings of

science and would therefore in my opinion not only have no educational

value but would be eductionally harmful. There is absolutely no way

for anyone to make such a calculation at this point because our

understanding of most of the relevant matters is very small. Any

calculations that assume " randomness " are inherent invalid based on

their assumptions.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...