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

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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

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

The difference is that dogs and gray wolves are both terrestrial

animals and both breathe through lungs, wheres the tiger salamander is

terrestrial and breathes through primitive lungs and the axolotl

salamander is aquatic and breathes through external gills. Thus, dogs

and gray wolves are much closer phenotypically than the two types of

salamanders we've been discussing.

> Although

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

> vary genetically by no more than .2%.

But you can't quantify genetic variation as a percentage. If you

could, it would be hard to distinguish between the difference between

humans and chimps and humans and other humans. Not knowing much about

canines, my current view would be that dogs and gray wolves are

different species because they have modes of life that precludes

interbreeding, and not only their morphology, but their ecological

status is different on an incredibly immense scale.

Or, perhaps I am exaggerating this difference out of ignorance. If

you captured a wolf while it was young, could you reliably domesticate

it like dogs are domesticated?

>Dogs are considered to be descendents

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

Since " no new genetic material " is ever introduced, I would think that

the first humans would have had to have had at least two dogs as pets.

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 9/4/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> 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.

If you presented an argument actively refuting the possibility of

evolution, this position might have a semblance of reasonability.

Since your argument against evolution, however, is that it is has not

been proven, then this position is not sensible.

That is, if evolution is the only plausible explanation, then all that

should be necessary to use it as a general framework is an explanation

of its plausibility and supporting evidence, not " proof. " If it is to

be rejected on the absence of " proof, " then a more plausible

explanation has to be presented to displace it.

I understand that you have purported to argue against the plausibility

of evolution in several places, but you have done so entirely by

distorting molecular genetics and claiming that there is no mechanism

for creating genetic material even though there are numerous such

mechanisms observed and established. Therefore, having refuted this

part of your argument, all that is left is your claim that

" macroevolution " has never been directly observed.

Since all of its mechanisms have been observed, and since evolutionary

theory does not predict evolution of large taxa in short periods of

time, all the evidence is entirely consistent with evolutionary

theory.

Your pointing out that hominid fossils do not demonstrate ancestors of

humans as once claimed (assuming you are correct, as to which I am

agnostic) does not in any way refute evolutionary theory in the

slightest; it merely refutes the interpretation given to a small

handful of evidence. It fells a tree, not the forest.

> 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.

Again, your repeated insistence upon limiting evolutionary evidence to

paleontology gives anyone reading your posts a gross misunderstanding

of what actually constitutes evolutionary evidence.

The evolutionary model of nutrition would propose that our ideal diet

is the one on which we evolved, because it constituted part of the

environment and therefore selective pressure that shaped our genome.

The implication of this is not that we eat whatever is found in the

skeletal remains of ancient humans. The implication is that we use

all forms of evidence to best ascertain what constituted the

historical and pre-historical human diet.

If one uses a creationist model or any other model, the degree to

which skeletal remains help us understand how past humans ate does not

increase or decrease,but remains the same. Therefore, your proposed

association between the evolutionary model and fossil evidence simply

does not exist.

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 Masterjohn

>

>

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

>

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

>

>The difference is that dogs and gray wolves are both terrestrial

>animals and both breathe through lungs, wheres the tiger salamander is

>terrestrial and breathes through primitive lungs and the axolotl

>salamander is aquatic and breathes through external gills. Thus, dogs

>and gray wolves are much closer phenotypically than the two types of

>salamanders we've been discussing.

Understood.

>

>> Although

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

>> vary genetically by no more than .2%.

>

>But you can't quantify genetic variation as a percentage.

OK. Sorry, I didn't word that right. According to geneticist K. Wayne

in " Molecular evolution of the dog family "

(http://www.kc.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm):

" The domestic dog is an extremely close relative of the gray wolf, differing

from it by at most 0.2% of mtDNA sequence15,22,23. "

And interestingly:

" In comparrison, the gray wolf differs from its closest wild relative, the

coyote, by about 4% of mitochondrial DNA sequence14 (Fig. 4). " "

If you

>could, it would be hard to distinguish between the difference between

>humans and chimps and humans and other humans. Not knowing much about

>canines, my current view would be that dogs and gray wolves are

>different species because they have modes of life that precludes

>interbreeding, and not only their morphology, but their ecological

>status is different on an incredibly immense scale.

Dogs have historically been considered a " subspecies " of the gray wolf. But

recently I believe they've been classified as the same species.

>

>Or, perhaps I am exaggerating this difference out of ignorance. If

>you captured a wolf while it was young, could you reliably domesticate

>it like dogs are domesticated?

I don't know, but over time, perhaps generations, that's how it's theorized

how dogs came from wolves. They were domesticated previously wild wolves

(Canis Lupus Familiaris), and today they are just domesticated wolves, I

think (Canis Lupus). That is, I think they've been reclassified, although

I'm not certain (Christie knows, but I'm not sure if she still reads this

list).

>

>>Dogs are considered to be descendents

>> of wolves, domesticatd by humans anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000

>years ago.

>

>Since " no new genetic material " is ever introduced, I would think that

>the first humans would have had to have had at least two dogs as pets.

Sorry, I don't follow. In Wayne's study, he found that the dogs in clades 2

and 4 were more closely related to gray wolves than they were to the dogs in

clades 1 and 3. According to Judy Haynes, who is a molecular geneticist and

evolutionary biologist...

" Wayne and his colleagues later provide indisputable evidence that these

different dog groups originated from different wolf populations in a paper

entitled " Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog " (Science, v.

276, or here); I should note here that this paper is published in one--of

only two--of the premier journals for ALL scientific disciplines on Earth.

Upon examining Fig. 1 in this latter paper, the untrained eye would likely

see just many wolf mtDNA sequences differing from many dog mtDNA sequences.

But Fig. 2--which shows a graphical representation of the results of

extensive, cutting-edge phylogenetic analyses of the data shown, only in

part, in Fig. 1--shows the trained eye that, not only are wolves the direct

and recent ancestor of dogs, but that the dogs in clades 2 and 4 are more

closely related to wolves than they are to the dogs in clades 1 and 3. Thus,

this figure also illuminates the polyphyletic nature of " dogs, " in which

" Dog " does not represent a genetically coherent group of organisms; to use

the word to refer to only those many breeds of domestic canines selected by

humans as companions is evolutionarily inaccurate. Further, the group " dog "

is paraphyletic because it excludes many genetically related organisms

(i.e., gray wolves). To those of you who are not molecular geneticists or

evolutionary biologists, this means that dogs are really not " dogs " at all,

but simply a diverse group of modified wolves.

It is my opinion that dogs should not even be afforded subspecies status

under Canis lupus, since " the wide variation in [the domestic dog's] adult

morphology probably results from simple changes in developmental rate and

timing " (Wayne, 1993), and because it is highly likely that backcrossing

(matings between " dogs " and wolves) has provided the genetic raw material

for artificial selection to produce the bewildering phenotypic diversity in

the domestic dog (Wayne et al., 1997). I further believe that the word " dog "

should still be used for " man's best friend, " simply as a matter of

convenience, even though it does not represent true genetic relatedness

among its members. " (Wolfdog Genetics -

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

Definitely not as diverse as your two salamandars, but a good example of

amazing morphological diversity within the same species or a species and

subspecies. Or maybe an example of the fluidity of species as you'd

mentioned?

And of course, dogs and wolves can and do interbreed, although, to my

knowledge, they normally only do so when wolves are domesticated.

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

Slits that are not gills are not gill slits, especially when the slits

develop into organs that gilled animals do not have. To say that they

are gill slits in light of this information shows a logical fallacy of

begging the question. The mammalian slits in the neck are only " gill

slits " since they are assumed to have been derived from gilled

animals. There is not evidence of this connection from observation.

As far the presumed tail of the human embryo is concerned, this

structure is the base of the spine that, as the human grows, becomes

surrounded by the rest of the tissue that becomes our bum. It is no

more a tail than is the human coccyx. A true tail is made of bony

parts beyond the coccyx.

Again, by the processes observed in real time, molecular biologists

are not observing a mountain of evidence that new genetic material is

being introduced which leads to the advancement and survivability of

any species in nature. Recombination is ubiquitous. Very often

recombination of genes is referred to as mutation, but that is not the

kind of mutation that is would be needed to produce macroevolution, as

mentioned in an earlier note. There are other " mutations " that can

cause alterations in genes such as radiation, mutagenic chemicals,

etc., but these mechanism could theoretically produce new genetic

material but are harmful to the organism in almost every case, and are

not observed to produce new organs or complex characteristics as would

be required for macroevolution to occur. The proofs for macroevoltion

are in the minds of evolutionists, not in nature. Limits to variation

are in the genome.

Here we can see how evolutionary desires to force feed presumptions

into what is observed with living organisms may prevent scientists

from understanding where physical degeneration comes from. Many

scientists are fixated on mutations causing traits. Thus, often fail

to see other environmental forces at play. Price understood how

parents eating refined foods caused children in a family to show signs

of degeneration. Evolutionists still have difficulty discerning

between degeneration caused by nutritional deficiency and degeneration

caused by presumed genetic degeneration. HOW MUCH MORE should we doubt

their interpretations of genetic dynamics relating to eons of time in

the past, for which there is no way of observing! Doctors, for

example, very often blame a patient's disease on his genes rather on

his behavior or diet. This is especially silly when doctors do not

test for genetic aberrations. Evolutionary interpretations have

significantly muddied the waters of dietary truth for which there is

abundant observation based on living organisms as by researchers such

as Price.

There is not a mountain of evidence for macroevolution from the work

of evolutionary biologists, but rather a mountain of paperwork

attempting to fill the vast gaps in the evolutionary model. Natural

science knows nothing of macroevolution. For many people, visualizing

a vast array of books and reports is enough to bridge the gap between

what is actually observed and the humanistic faith they so desperately

rely on.

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

People Are Human-Bacteria Hybrid

Pasted from

<http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65252,00.html>

Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are

they even human.

More than 500 different species of bacteria exist in our

bodies, making up more than 100 trillion cells. Because our

bodies are made of only some several trillion human cells,

we are somewhat outnumbered by the aliens. It follows that

most of the genes in our bodies are from bacteria, too.

live free and healthy

Ed Kasper L.Ac., Acupuncturist & Medicinal Herbalist

http://HappyHerbalist.com eddy@...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/4/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote:

> Here we can see how evolutionary desires to force feed presumptions

> into what is observed with living organisms may prevent scientists

> from understanding where physical degeneration comes from. Many

> scientists are fixated on mutations causing traits. Thus, often fail

> to see other environmental forces at play. Price understood how

> parents eating refined foods caused children in a family to show signs

> of degeneration. Evolutionists still have difficulty discerning

> between degeneration caused by nutritional deficiency and degeneration

> caused by presumed genetic degeneration.

Sorry, this is just so absurd-- I've never once heard the argument

from any reasonable person that " genetic degeneration " is the cause of

physical degeneration en masse. Whatever the horrorshow mindset you

feel to be engendered by belief in evolution (for which the evidence

is so overwhelming you'd simply have to ignore it not to give it

credence, which seems to be the strategy employed) these wide-eyed

political rants just aren't going anywhere.

> HOW MUCH MORE should we doubt

> their interpretations of genetic dynamics relating to eons of time in

> the past, for which there is no way of observing! Doctors, for

> example, very often blame a patient's disease on his genes rather on

> his behavior or diet.

Trying to assert that genetic differences can't account for some

diseases or vulnerabilities would also be pretty absurd.

> This is especially silly when doctors do not

> test for genetic aberrations.

Sure they do. All the time.

> There is not a mountain of evidence for macroevolution from the work

> of evolutionary biologists, but rather a mountain of paperwork

> attempting to fill the vast gaps in the evolutionary model.

....which would be the whole point of research: to explain the holes

in our current best interpretation. This " we haven't observed it "

argument you keep deploying amounts to nothing more than an obstinate

refusal to believe what you don't want to. In other words,

flat-earthery at its finest.

I've never once observed an electron, much less an electron flowing

through a p channel in n-doped silicon and yet my computer works.

> Natural

> science knows nothing of macroevolution. For many people, visualizing

> a vast array of books and reports is enough to bridge the gap between

> what is actually observed and the humanistic faith they so desperately

> rely on.

Credible people with straight heads who've devoted their lives to

studying the science believe it. But maybe it's just that old

evolutionist dementia created by, who was it again, social darwinist

pharmaceutical moguls? Those guys seem capable of anything.

> For many people, visualizing

> a vast array of books and reports is enough to bridge the gap between

> what is actually observed and the humanistic faith they so desperately

> rely on.

For many people, visualizing a complete lack of evidence makes that

evidence disappear. Who's really relying on desperate faith here?

I've never been able to figure out what so many christians find

threatening about evolution... why can't some sort of evolution be the

mechanism of creation? Is it that we'd then be sullied somehow by

monkey blood? So much energy gets expended in creating this vast

apparatus of denial. It'll end up exactly like the flat earth

argument and the denial of a heliocentric solar system-- people will

finally realize it's a total non-issue with respect to faith in the

christian god and they'll look back and giggle at those who denied it

with such vigor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

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

> 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.

That's completely out of line with the history of that frame of mind,

which existed for thousands of years before Darwin in probably every

developed culture in the world (at least those who left behind texts).

The fact that a lot of misguided people latched on to the phrase

" survival of the fittest " to justify their skewed ideologies doesn't

justify your vilification of the biological science. Conflating the

two amounts to just another tactic to demonize evolution for whatever

purpose (I'm guessing it's religious from your use of the word

" humanistic " in another post).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Thanks, for your input. I am espousing no religion, but humanism

is a religion intertwined with evolution and a predominant religious

philosophy that fuels public funded universities. Evolution and other

religious philosophies are fuel by agendas and bias. I am espousing

no observational explanation for origins, and that explanations for

origins are irrelevant to observational science based on dietetics.

>

> That's completely out of line with the history of that frame of mind,

> which existed for thousands of years before Darwin in probably every

> developed culture in the world (at least those who left behind texts).

> The fact that a lot of misguided people latched on to the phrase

> " survival of the fittest " to justify their skewed ideologies doesn't

> justify your vilification of the biological science. Conflating the

> two amounts to just another tactic to demonize evolution for whatever

> purpose (I'm guessing it's religious from your use of the word

> " humanistic " in another post).

>

>

>

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

> Sorry, this is just so absurd-- I've never once heard the argument

> from any reasonable person that " genetic degeneration " is the cause of

> physical degeneration en masse.

I have heard varying accounts of how when a patient is discovered to

have cancer, a doctor responds by assuring the patient that it has

nothing to do with that person's habit or diet, but rather that

peoples genes render them the propensity to have cancer. This is not

at all an absurd claim I am making. It happens.

> Trying to assert that genetic differences can't account for some

> diseases or vulnerabilities would also be pretty absurd.

>

I have not asserted that genetic differences can't account for some

disease vulnerabilities, but diet and lifestyle have much more to do

with cancer and other degenerative diseases than the predominant

claims on genetics promoted extensively in the media and by many

doctors.

> > This is especially silly when doctors do not

> > test for genetic aberrations.

>

> Sure they do. All the time.

Read my English carefully. I did not say doctors do not, but " when

they do not. " When my wife got severe aplastic anemia, for which she

did not receive the drugs prescribed, they did test for a certain

genetic disorder, but frequently doctors do not test for a specific

gene for cancer, but yet claim that a gene is responsible. In that

case, what I said still stands.

>

> > There is not a mountain of evidence for macroevolution from the work

> > of evolutionary biologists, but rather a mountain of paperwork

> > attempting to fill the vast gaps in the evolutionary model.

>

> ...which would be the whole point of research: to explain the holes

> in our current best interpretation. This " we haven't observed it "

> argument you keep deploying amounts to nothing more than an obstinate

> refusal to believe what you don't want to. In other words,

> flat-earthery at its finest.

Please show me instances where macroevoluton has produced something

like an ape turning into a human observationally. It is not observed.

There are innumerable claims that macroevolution has happened, but

what is actually observed is not remotely close to what would be

required for macroevolution to have occurred.

>

> I've never once observed an electron, much less an electron flowing

> through a p channel in n-doped silicon and yet my computer works.

This is totally different. We can reproduce physical phenomenon based

on theories of unseen particles. But these theories are testable and

repeatable. The production of an human from an ape has not been

observed nor has it been repeated under observable conditions,

therefore the analogy with unseen physical forces that can be tested

in real time totally breaks down.

>

> Credible people with straight heads who've devoted their lives to

> studying the science believe it. But maybe it's just that old

> evolutionist dementia created by, who was it again, social darwinist

> pharmaceutical moguls? Those guys seem capable of anything.

You can find anyone who has devoted their lives to any particular

cause, but let logic stand for itself not devotion.

>

> For many people, visualizing a complete lack of evidence makes that

> evidence disappear. Who's really relying on desperate faith here?

>

> I've never been able to figure out what so many christians find

> threatening about evolution... why can't some sort of evolution be the

> mechanism of creation? Is it that we'd then be sullied somehow by

> monkey blood? So much energy gets expended in creating this vast

> apparatus of denial. It'll end up exactly like the flat earth

> argument and the denial of a heliocentric solar system-- people will

> finally realize it's a total non-issue with respect to faith in the

> christian god and they'll look back and giggle at those who denied it

> with such vigor.

A great many Christians and religious people of many faiths believe

evolution, the problem is that macroevolution as described in

textbooks and journals, has not been observed, is not being observed,

and the mechanisms of life we are currently observing are sorely

deficient to produce macroevolution.

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What an honor, thank you implode. However, the Bible and science do agree. There

are potentially millions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

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

lol....that is too cute

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

At 09:10 AM 9/2/06 -0700, Gene wrote:

>My ability to visualize a 100 foot hamster directly serves no survival

purpose, and yet here I am!

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

would evolve?

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

" 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. "

It is also an honor to know that educated people think I'm a wacko. Tell me,

educated persons, what causes gravity? Surely scientists should know

everything about something that has been around since before recorded

history. Oh wait, no one really knows why gravity exists, and it just goes

to show that no matter how " educated " someone is, it doesn't really matter

because some things probably won't be found out.

Also (not sure if anyone has said this yet), evolution and ID cannot be

scientifically proven, so technically the debate can never be won; which

kind of makes this whole thread pointless, and severely off-topic from

eating healthy so our guts don't revolt.

-Steve (not my wife, penciloid)

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. "

>

> ³It is also an honor to know that educated people think I'm a wacko. Tell me,

> educated persons, what causes gravity? Surely scientists should know

> everything about something that has been around since before recorded

> history. Oh wait, no one really knows why gravity exists, and it just goes

> to show that no matter how " educated " someone is, it doesn't really matter

> because some things probably won't be found out.

>

> Also (not sure if anyone has said this yet), evolution and ID cannot be

> scientifically proven, so technically the debate can never be won; which

> kind of makes this whole thread pointless, and severely off-topic from

> eating healthy so our guts don't revolt.

>

> -Steve (not my wife, penciloid)²

>

> Sorry for the formatting of my recent posts. I¹m not sure what is causing the

> weird formatting...

>

> As I¹ve already said, there is a difference between understanding that science

> is not capable of explaining fully all of the phenomena that we encounter, and

> that is probably due to the very nature of scientific observation and human

> brainpower. However to posit a supernatural explanation as a plausible theory

> because there may be gaps in an otherwise plausible scientific theory is

> religious nuttery. Believe it in the privacy of your own home or religious

> institution, but DO NOT try to bring this country back to the middle ages.

> Bush and company are doing a good enough job of that by themselves..

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Since we are on the topic of the middle ages, I suggest that last

century was worse than the middle ages for those under atheistic

Marxism. The well documented Black Book of Communism researched by

French Journalists who had access into Communist archives after the

fall of the Berlin wall estimate that more than 120 million perished

in gulags and mass exterminations, and planned famines under the hands

of atheist Communists--Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. This pales

in comparison to wars perpetrated by Buddhist, Muslims and Christians

in the middle ages. And yes, it is seldom recognized that Buddhists

fought wars with one another.

So lets not go back to the 20th century as well.

On 9/4/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@...> wrote:

> >

> > Sorry for the formatting of my recent posts. I¹m not sure what is causing

the

> > weird formatting...

> >

> > As I¹ve already said, there is a difference between understanding that

science

> > is not capable of explaining fully all of the phenomena that we encounter,

and

> > that is probably due to the very nature of scientific observation and human

> > brainpower. However to posit a supernatural explanation as a plausible

theory

> > because there may be gaps in an otherwise plausible scientific theory is

> > religious nuttery. Believe it in the privacy of your own home or religious

> > institution, but DO NOT try to bring this country back to the middle ages.

> > Bush and company are doing a good enough job of that by themselves..

--

www.goatrevolution.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> ³Since we are on the topic of the middle ages, I suggest that last

> century was worse than the middle ages for those under atheistic

> Marxism. The well documented Black Book of Communism researched by

> French Journalists who had access into Communist archives after the

> fall of the Berlin wall estimate that more than 120 million perished

> in gulags and mass exterminations, and planned famines under the hands

> of atheist Communists--Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. This pales

> in comparison to wars perpetrated by Buddhist, Muslims and Christians

> in the middle ages. And yes, it is seldom recognized that Buddhists

> fought wars with one another.

>

> So lets not go back to the 20th century as well.²

>

> LOL. Are you sure it wasn¹t 120 billion?

>

> On 9/4/06, Gene Schwartz <implode7@... <mailto:implode7%40comcast.net>

> > wrote:

>>> > >

>>> > > Sorry for the formatting of my recent posts. I¹m not sure what is

>>> causing the

>>> > > weird formatting...

>>> > >

>>> > > As I¹ve already said, there is a difference between understanding that

>>> science

>>> > > is not capable of explaining fully all of the phenomena that we

>>> encounter, and

>>> > > that is probably due to the very nature of scientific observation and

>>> human

>>> > > brainpower. However to posit a supernatural explanation as a plausible

>>> theory

>>> > > because there may be gaps in an otherwise plausible scientific theory is

>>> > > religious nuttery. Believe it in the privacy of your own home or

>>> religious

>>> > > institution, but DO NOT try to bring this country back to the middle >>>

ages.

>>> > > Bush and company are doing a good enough job of that by themselves..

" Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

> I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always lies

> somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in

> finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions

> inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but

> making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously

> neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of beliefs

> will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a better

> balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability of

> any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as complex

> as life and the universe, and also teaching a general appreciation

> for that complexity.

>

I'm not sure where this bit about 'atheistic conclusions drawn from science'

comes in. Certainly, if there is some greater power in the universe, it could

design the rules of nature so that life could form out of inorganic matter.

Indeed - if there were such a greater power that was omnipotent like the god you

like to foce on others, why couldn't HE create such a science, given that HE has

created natural laws that take care of so much else. Was it kind of like, he

just couldn't solve that one last thing?

It's certainly fine to address issues in any scientific course of study about

what is not explained by current science. It's certainly fine to explain that

the complexity of nature might be elusive given limitations of our measurement

capabilities, and our minds. However, what is not OK and is part of your AGENDA

is to bring god into the mix. Obviously there is no such thing as total

objectivity in life, and certainly points of view are going to appear in public

schools. There's no way to avoid that. but you can leave GOD out of it, and you

can leave Christianity out of it. And it is offensive that you want to bring it

in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Macroevolution is commonly given different definitions. Defining a

tern is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the flow

of argument makes a premise dependent on the conclusion as with the

evolutionary model. For example, ages of sedimentary strata are dated

by index fossils, and index fossils are dated by the strata. This is

done independently of radiometric dating as already mentioned. Thus,

the paleontologist refers to the geologist for dating the fossils, and

the geologist refers to the paleontologist for dating the sedimentary

rock strata.

I am using a definition for macroevolution that does suit my argument,

and I have picked a valid definition of macroevolution which evokes

universal biological observations. MICROevolution and MACROevolution,

though are often defined so that the terms are ambiguously similar.

When this is done essentially the argument becomes as thus: A=B; if A

then B; A is True; therefore B true. As we can see below for common

definitions that are used for micro- and macro- evolution, some

definitions are shifting. The definition I am using is most

consistent with the last one below: " Large-scale evolution occurring

over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic

groups. " Notice that that definition does not say " new taxonomic

species or varieties " but " groups. " Various definitions below do are

not altogether uncommon in evolutionary circles.

Webster on EVOLUTION

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or

species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals

and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the

distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive

generations; also : the process described by this theory

6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of

interrelated phenomena

Webster on Macroevolution

evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in

species formation)

Webster on Microevolution

comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of

variations in populations usually below the species level

Answers.com on evolution

# Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during

successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the

genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development

of new species.

2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Answers.com on microevolution

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic

variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Answers.com on macroevolution

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the

formation of new taxonomic groups.

All too often, the authentication of one lesser assertion of the

evolutionary model leads to unwarranted assertions that other

definitions above are true.

Trouble is that some of the assertions in definitions of evolution,

microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, mutation, recombination

are observed and others are not observed but are concluded by faulty

logic and equivocation.

Just as paleontologists and geologists trust fallacious circular

reasoning to date sedimentary layers and index fossils, so ubiquitous

assumptions are made about various definitions for evolution,

microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, etc. based on numerous

logical fallacies, especially equivocation. It does not follow that

specific observations relating to variation, speciation, gene swapping

by bacteria, disproves other non-observations, that apes developed

into humans or fish into reptiles. We observe that there are

taxonomic groups that neither interbreed nor transform one into

another.

There are many mechanism through which bacteria swap genes, and in

fact human cells swap genes during sexual reproduction, but not all

species are observed to follow the same rules. Unlike bacteria, there

is a stasis that mammalian cells achieve after sexual reproduction,

and there are innumerable differences between bacteria and mammals.

Incidentally, I am enjoying all this research on bacterial genetics.

If macroevolution of the definition I am using (Large-scale evolution

occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new

taxonomic groups) were true I would expect bacteria to be transforming

into cellular organisms since their rate of division is so

astronomically rapid. Since it is asserted that we do not see

macroevolution occur in the grand scale because of the great number of

generations required, which has taken millions of years, then bacteria

should be able to simulate millions of years of genetic change in

observable time due to their astronomical numbers and rate of

division. We should be seeing bacteria transform into non-bacterial

organisms. But with all the mechanisms we do observe in bacteria,

this proves that bacteria just make more bacteria.

About Price being an evolutionist. Fine with me. But as I have read

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I am not struck that evolutionism

was to him what it is claimed to be by evolutionary biologist today,

that is, that macroevolution is the underlying principle of all

biological sciences. Price or anyone else, should have come to the

same sort of conclusions without having to assert or believe in

macroevolution or learning much about it. Now, there are people at

this point who would say that all science is evolution. This is said

while assuming that macroevolution is true, that macroevolution

happened as a result of genetics, variation, mutation, speciation, and

therefore one must believe in the unobserved principle in order to be

a true scientist who works with the observational.

If Price were to base his dietary conclusions by the same kind of

processes people come to believe in macroevolution today, it would be

based on something like 0.0001% or less observation. The evolution

model is irrelevant to his OBSERVATIONS based on intensive real time

not on millions of years of non-observation. CONCLUSIONS based on

non-observation and macroevolution are suspect. The great power of

Price's work has to do with the massive amounts of observational data,

which overshadow erroneous assupmtions of macroevolution. Remove

macroevolutionary assumptions presumptions and the value of his

observations are unchanged.

Now concerning recombination. The genetic code we are still

discovering much about. When the genetic code is recombined, the

code itself requires mechanisms outside itself to recombine. The

genetic code is considered the source of the duplicable complexity of

the organism. Are the lengths of DNA growing? If so, are there

observed limits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/5/06, kristinmoke <kmoke@...> wrote:

> My (best albeit rudimentary) understanding of the theory is it

> posits that (1) Involvement of a supernatural Intelligence in the

> formation of life and the universe is a real and reasonable

> possibility; (2) We can observe evidence supporting this possibility

> by analyzing scientific knowledge of the natural world; (3) If such

> Intelligence exists, our understanding of science would be

> incomplete without acknowledging it.

ID is not an actualy theory, but is an umbrella group of different

writers who each offer different explanations for why scientific

evidence shows active evidence for intelligent design.

I have only read bits and pieces of most of their work. I own and

have read Behe's book (_Darwin's Black Box_) and although I

have purchased a few other ID books I haven't gotten around to reading

them all.

So my interpretation is limited to my reading of Behe's " theory " of

" irreducible complexity. " Behe actually argues that it is impossible

for there not to be design. This is a little different than arguing a

greater intelligence is a real possibility. In fact evolution does

not argue anything contrary to the realness of the possibility of

intelligent design. Evolution does not posit anything remotely close

to " randomness " because evolution posits that the development of life

adhered to the physicochemical laws of the universe. There is no

argument from any school of thought that I am aware of that proposes

to explain how the physicochemical laws of the universe arose, and I

think many (certainly not all) people would conclude that the most

likely explanation is a greater intelligence, in which case there is

absolutely zero about evolution that suggests the lack of such

intelligence over the ID school

In fact, what the ID school argues is that God is totally incompetent.

Behe does not even argue with common descent. He simply argues that

God had to actively modify the process of common decent. God, Behe

implies, was so completely bad at making life that he had to interfere

with his own process to tweak it here and there because he couldn't

set the laws of the development of life correctly from the beginning.

Who in their right mind would consider such a " theory " to be to the

glory of God?

> So should it be considered meta-science or philosophy of science or

> something else other than true scientific theory?

It isn't a theory because it does not offer any kind of testable

predictions from a hypothesis. Usually when a hypothesis is

presented, the author states the experiments that would confirm or

refute the hypothesis. Although I read it years ago and may be wrong,

I do not recall Behe presenting any such thing in his book.

I'm not sure what you mean by " meta-science. " It isn't anything like

a meta-analysis of all science. If you mean science of metaphysical

phenomena, I'm not sure how to interpret that. Most ID books engage

in philosophy of science to some degree, but philosophy of science is

a paradigm for engaging in the development, interpretation, or testing

of a theory; it does not itself constitute a theory. Or, rather, if

it were to constitute a theory, it would be an epistemological theory

rather than a biological theory.

>Is it a backlash

> from the misguided atheistic conclusions that accompanied evolution

> and other modern scientific discoveries?

Was the Pope announcing that biological evolution was consistent with

the doctrines of the largest Christian organization on the face of the

earth a misguided atheistic conclusion?

>I don't know, but either

> way I think it raises very interesting and relevant questions that

> are beyond the scope of religion and science as we currently define

> them. I also believe there is a richness of knowledge to be obtained

> where the two intersect if we could get beyond the rigid boundaries

> set and the overblown fear of religion. (a la if God exists, he

> exists whether we believe in him or not.)

I agree that the fear of religion in public is incredibly overblown.

I favor freedom of expression rather than freedom from expression.

> I would submit the questions ID is asking are qualitatively

> different than examples like your gravity one and not the same

> as " we don't understand it so it must be supernatural. "

Behe's argument essentially constitutes exactly that. He argues that

biochemical systems are " irreducibly complex. " Since we cannot posit

a step-by-step way for certain biochemical systems to arise, they

could not have arisen according to natural laws but required

intelligent intervention to arise. This is exaclty equivalent to " we

don't understand it so it must be supernatural, " because he interprets

the systems within the state of current knowledge when he must know

that in many cases in the past we have discovered how certain

chemicals can have multiple functions or may serve other functions in

different species, such that the pre-requisites to a biochemical

system could evolve for different purposes until they are sufficient

to begin building a new biochemical system. Thus, since the same

could be true for every example he offers of " irreducible complexity, "

he is exactly arguing that because present knowledge is limited, a

system must have arisen supernaturally. Moreover, after he published

his book numerous authors posited explanations for how the systems he

claims are irreducibly complex could have arisen.

>For example,

> in looking at how the least complex lifeform we know of (which is

> still enourmously complex)

That does not indicate that the least complex lifeform a couple

billion years ago was as enormously complex as the least complex

lifeform we know of now. Additionally, there are many things that are

intermediate between living and non-living. A virus is an example.

Naked DNA that is not viral, that exists in the environment, and that

can be incorporated into other genomes, is viral-like and even more

simple. Becker noted similarities to living systems of

semi-conducting rocks in his _The Body Electric_ and posited an

interesting concept of how life could have arisen from the electric

properties of some rocks. Far out, but highlights how little we know

about the origin of life and how innumerable the possibilities for its

beginnings are.

In any case, one would think that the most primitive life forms would

have been eliminated by more complex life forms. Even people have

done that to each other. Like the Bantu wiped out much of Africa at

one time. We would not look at the results and assume that Africans

must always have looked similar to present day Africans for such

reasons.

> could arise from inorganic matter, we

> know not just that it's incredibly unlikely, but it also doesn't

> jive with the significant things we *do* know about inorganic

> matter.

I'm not sure what you're talking about as far as what we know about

inorganic matter, but " evolution " and " abiogenesis " are generally

considered two separate theories. Evolution assumes life.

Abiogenesis, on the other hand, proposes to explain how life could

have arisen from non-life. Evolution does not comment on the arising

of life from non-life at all.

> I don't think this is the same as refining our knowledge of

> a natural law to better define a phenomena.

Right. The latter is science while the former is philosophical contemplation.

> Maybe so, but wrongly. I think it was a classic mistake of man

> putting God in a box that his limited mind could manage.

Anthropomorphic forcing on God is obvious in the ID camp, because the

ID camp assumes that God is as limited as humans are in his ability to

only see so far ahead at each step of the way. This is the

fundamental premise of ID: the limit of God's creative power and

foresight.

> I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always lies

> somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in

> finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions

> inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but

> making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously

> neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of beliefs

> will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a better

> balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability of

> any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as complex

> as life and the universe, and also teaching a general appreciation

> for that complexity.

That's an excellent thing to do, but it should not be done with

fallacious mathematical calculations performed by people with an

agenda based on the erroneous equivocation of natural laws with

randomness.

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

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>>> > >

>>> > > I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always

> lies

>>> > > somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in

>>> > > finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions

>>> > > inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but

>>> > > making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously

>>> > > neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of

> beliefs

>>> > > will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a

> better

>>> > > balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability

> of

>>> > > any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as

> complex

>>> > > as life and the universe, and also teaching a general

> appreciation

>>> > > for that complexity.

>>> > >

>> >

>> > I'm not sure where this bit about 'atheistic conclusions drawn

> from science' comes in.

>

> ---------I've heard people say " I don't believe in God- I'm an evolutionist

> ---------or I believe in science. " I don't think this is uncommon.

>

> Right ­ but this doesn¹t mean that their atheism is a conclusion of their

> belief in Evolution.

>

>> >Certainly, if there is some greater power in the universe, it could

> design the rules of nature so that life could form out of inorganic

> matter. Indeed - if there were such a greater power that was

> omnipotent like the god you like to foce on others, why couldn't HE

> create such a science, given that HE has created natural laws that

> take care of so much else. Was it kind of like, he just couldn't

>> >solve that one last thing?

>> >

>> > It's certainly fine to address issues in any scientific course of

> study about what is not explained by current science. It's certainly

> fine to explain that the complexity of nature might be elusive given

> limitations of our measurement capabilities, and our minds. However,

> what is not OK and is part of your AGENDA is to bring god into the

> mix. Obviously there is no such thing as total objectivity in life,

> and certainly points of view are going to appear in public schools.

> There's no way to avoid that. but you can leave GOD out of it, and

> you can leave Christianity out of it. And it is offensive that you

> want to bring it in.

>> >

> -----The educational suggestions I offered were decidedly not religious.

> -----Whatever " AGENDA " you claim is completely unfounded, and,

> -----incidentally, a great example of the overblown fear of religion I

> -----mentioned. But for the record, that the mention of a generic higher

> -----power in the context of a classroom discussion infringes on some

> -----atheist kid's rights is ridiculous.

>

> I have no fear of religion. I studied a bunch of religious philosophy in

> college. I do have a fear of simple minded people inserting religion in a

> science curriculum. Certainly there can be mention of a Œgeneric¹ higher power

> in the context of a classroom discussion. One couldn¹t discuss the history of

> the world without it. But it has no place in a science discussion. ID is not a

> theory in any sense of the word, and any attempt to insert it in a science

> curriculum IS a religious agenda. It IS a religious belief, and a desire to

> keep a separation of church and state is most decidedly NOT a fear of

> religion. While your version of it may include a Œgeneric¹ god, this agenda is

> peculiar to right wing Christians, and I have an absolute abhorrence for what

> they are trying to do in this country. I fear THEM, and their IGNORANCE, not

> religion itself.

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

geeze,,,it goes on, and on..lol...answer me this one question, if something

" evolves " from something, then it means the original thing it evolved from no

longer exists......right? And if that is so, then why are there still monkeys

around?

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

Macroevolution is commonly given different definitions. Defining a

tern is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning is when the flow

of argument makes a premise dependent on the conclusion as with the

evolutionary model. For example, ages of sedimentary strata are dated

by index fossils, and index fossils are dated by the strata. This is

done independently of radiometric dating as already mentioned. Thus,

the paleontologist refers to the geologist for dating the fossils, and

the geologist refers to the paleontologist for dating the sedimentary

rock strata.

I am using a definition for macroevolution that does suit my argument,

and I have picked a valid definition of macroevolution which evokes

universal biological observations. MICROevolution and MACROevolution,

though are often defined so that the terms are ambiguously similar.

When this is done essentially the argument becomes as thus: A=B; if A

then B; A is True; therefore B true. As we can see below for common

definitions that are used for micro- and macro- evolution, some

definitions are shifting. The definition I am using is most

consistent with the last one below: " Large-scale evolution occurring

over geologic time that results in the formation of new taxonomic

groups. " Notice that that definition does not say " new taxonomic

species or varieties " but " groups. " Various definitions below do are

not altogether uncommon in evolutionary circles.

Webster on EVOLUTION

4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or

species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals

and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the

distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive

generations; also : the process described by this theory

6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of

interrelated phenomena

Webster on Macroevolution

evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in

species formation)

Webster on Microevolution

comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of

variations in populations usually below the species level

Answers.com on evolution

# Biology.

1. Change in the genetic composition of a population during

successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the

genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development

of new species.

2. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.

Answers.com on microevolution

Evolution resulting from a succession of relatively small genetic

variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies.

Answers.com on macroevolution

Large-scale evolution occurring over geologic time that results in the

formation of new taxonomic groups.

All too often, the authentication of one lesser assertion of the

evolutionary model leads to unwarranted assertions that other

definitions above are true.

Trouble is that some of the assertions in definitions of evolution,

microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, mutation, recombination

are observed and others are not observed but are concluded by faulty

logic and equivocation.

Just as paleontologists and geologists trust fallacious circular

reasoning to date sedimentary layers and index fossils, so ubiquitous

assumptions are made about various definitions for evolution,

microevolution, macroevolution, speciation, etc. based on numerous

logical fallacies, especially equivocation. It does not follow that

specific observations relating to variation, speciation, gene swapping

by bacteria, disproves other non-observations, that apes developed

into humans or fish into reptiles. We observe that there are

taxonomic groups that neither interbreed nor transform one into

another.

There are many mechanism through which bacteria swap genes, and in

fact human cells swap genes during sexual reproduction, but not all

species are observed to follow the same rules. Unlike bacteria, there

is a stasis that mammalian cells achieve after sexual reproduction,

and there are innumerable differences between bacteria and mammals.

Incidentally, I am enjoying all this research on bacterial genetics.

If macroevolution of the definition I am using (Large-scale evolution

occurring over geologic time that results in the formation of new

taxonomic groups) were true I would expect bacteria to be transforming

into cellular organisms since their rate of division is so

astronomically rapid. Since it is asserted that we do not see

macroevolution occur in the grand scale because of the great number of

generations required, which has taken millions of years, then bacteria

should be able to simulate millions of years of genetic change in

observable time due to their astronomical numbers and rate of

division. We should be seeing bacteria transform into non-bacterial

organisms. But with all the mechanisms we do observe in bacteria,

this proves that bacteria just make more bacteria.

About Price being an evolutionist. Fine with me. But as I have read

Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, I am not struck that evolutionism

was to him what it is claimed to be by evolutionary biologist today,

that is, that macroevolution is the underlying principle of all

biological sciences. Price or anyone else, should have come to the

same sort of conclusions without having to assert or believe in

macroevolution or learning much about it. Now, there are people at

this point who would say that all science is evolution. This is said

while assuming that macroevolution is true, that macroevolution

happened as a result of genetics, variation, mutation, speciation, and

therefore one must believe in the unobserved principle in order to be

a true scientist who works with the observational.

If Price were to base his dietary conclusions by the same kind of

processes people come to believe in macroevolution today, it would be

based on something like 0.0001% or less observation. The evolution

model is irrelevant to his OBSERVATIONS based on intensive real time

not on millions of years of non-observation. CONCLUSIONS based on

non-observation and macroevolution are suspect. The great power of

Price's work has to do with the massive amounts of observational data,

which overshadow erroneous assupmtions of macroevolution. Remove

macroevolutionary assumptions presumptions and the value of his

observations are unchanged.

Now concerning recombination. The genetic code we are still

discovering much about. When the genetic code is recombined, the

code itself requires mechanisms outside itself to recombine. The

genetic code is considered the source of the duplicable complexity of

the organism. Are the lengths of DNA growing? If so, are there

observed limits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

>

>

>

>

> ---geeze,,,it goes on, and on..lol...answer me this one question, if something

> " evolves " from something, then it means the ---original thing it evolved from

> no longer exists......right? And if that is so, then why are there still

> monkeys around?

> ---

>

> This just gets hilariouser and hilariouser...Note the email address here -

> Œbible770¹.

>

> Well, I am very far from an expert on evolution, but no ­ I don¹t think that

> if a evolved from b, it means that b is no longer around necessarily. Why ­

> did you think that you had disproven the theory of evolution with that remark?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

On 9/6/06, <bible770@...> wrote:

> geeze,,,it goes on, and on..lol...answer me this one question, if something

" evolves " from something, then it means the original thing it evolved from no

longer exists......right?

No, it does not in any remote way whatsoever even imply anything like that.

>And if that is so, then why are there still monkeys around?

Further, it is not the contention of any evolutionist that humans

evolved from monkeys.

If you would like a good introduction to the theory of evolution, the

best place to start would be an introductory biology textbook. Note

also that it would not be an anthropology textbook or a paleontology

textbook, but an introductory biology textbook.

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

>>However, what is not OK and is part of your AGENDA is to bring god into the

mix. Obviously there is no such thing as total objectivity in life, and

certainly points of view are going to appear in public schools. There's no way

to avoid that. but you can leave GOD out of it, and you can leave Christianity

out of it. And it is offensive that you want to bring it in.>>

I'm glad it's offensive! God is always offensive to hysterical detractors. He

*means* to be offensive. Were He not, he would be an impotent God indeed.

No " objectivity " ? Really? 2+2 does not equal 4?

What a ridiculous notion that God should not be part of the debate about the

origins of life. How convenient for the evolutionists side;-)

Please try to distinguish between micro and macro evolution -micro in no way is

inconsistent with the Biblical God; macro (species jumping and hence

monkey-to-man) is not only inconsistent, but ludicrous on its face.

There is not one single credible, indisputable, repeatable shred of scientific

evidence for macro evoltuion or species jumping. Not one. They'll tell you there

is, but there isn't.

Nor is it rational. For any creature to, by random means, in one generation

alter forever its ability to mate with its former species to now form a new one,

and to happen to be in the vicinity of the opposite gender simultaneously

encountering the mindnumbingly improbable same transmutation begs the most

politically-hardened darwinist to raise a bushy prominent eyebrow.

There is simply no need to drop out of this debate, you all, because it

purportedly requires " scientific degrees. " It does not. Any ape can wonder about

the dogmatic and hysterical demands of no debate made by evolutionists, apply

common sense to the wobbly claims and reach a healthy amount of doubt.

Never let any of the politically-correct demands that you " leave God out of the

equation " force you to fold your hand. It is a red herring. Like all the Galileo

and madness of the Middle Ages and separation of church-state issues. All meant

to detract from the real argument which is " where's the beef? "

I could demand that you leave your agenda out of it, that it is NOT OK to speak

your mind in any fashion you wish. And that I find you offensive. But I'm not

threatened by you or your agenda. Not in the least.

Remember all, the sun is not necessarily the center of anything and Pluto is

just a rock after all.

Jane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

honestly, I've never met a Christian who believed in evolution. When someone

comes and says that the bibles says such and such, I always ask for chapter and

verse. I'm asking you where you get your information from on the Christians

viewpoint on evolution, as far as believing in it.

Sorry

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

,

> 1.. Change in the genetic composition of a population during

>successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the

>genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of

>new species.

I'm not sure why you posted that very long list of largely irrelevant

definitions, but as you can see from the above definition, it is

populations, not species, that evolve. That is why it explicitly

notes the development of a new species, but says nothing about the

cessation of the original species.

> Gene, in answer to your question as to whether or not I think that

>discounts evolution, absolutely not. However, I too search for the truth in

>everything. One thing that I find interesting is that Darwin was a " self

>taught " geologist. And I am probably far less an expert in evolution as

>you are, but isn't geology the study of rocks and of the earth's crust and

>such?

The theory of evoultion in its current state does not rest on Darwin's

findings (though they are still illustrative and supportive), and no

theory in any science whatsoever depends on the background of its

advocates and certainly not of a mere one of its advocates.

> Darwin was a confessed Agnostic, he wasn't sure either way

>whether God existed or not.

What does his faith have to do with yours, mine, or anyone else's?

> One of the arguments for Darwin was that

>he " had to be sure of his theory, otherwise why would he have suffered

>the persecution of the religious world? "

I have never heard anyone argue for Darwin; I'm not even sure what it

would mean to " argue for Darwin. " Likewise I would immediately

dismiss anyone who argued for *evolution* on the basis of Darwin's

willingness to endure any type of persecution, and if that was the

only argument for evolution I would certainly dismiss the theory off

the bat. Likewise, even if a good many of its proponents suggested

that such an argument was evidence for evolution, I would be highly

skeptical of the theory on the basis that most of its advocates were

obvious kooks.

Since that is not the case, I believe evolution takes place based on

the massive scientific evidence and the absolute self-evidence of

evolution that stares back at you when you look at how the inside of a

cell is ordered.

> And in using that question, I

>have to say why would men for over the last 2000 years give their lives for

>something they believed in, if they too weren't sure?

This likewise does not prove that the faith they died for was true.

Nevertheless, there is nothing mutually exclusive about evolution and

Christianity, which is why millions of Christians believe in

evolution.

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

Is dirt or clay inorganic?

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

On 9/6/06, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote:

> You suggested something about inorganic molecules, which I will

> address fully later.

It is worth noting that according to the Bible, man was made from

inorganic material.

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...