EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

[Guest guest]

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. Many unobserved

assumptions come into play to assert that microorganisms transformed

into humanity when a phenomenon is observed, which is often termed

speciation, that is, the reproduction of characteristics already laden

in the genetic code and expressed through recombination. 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. As much as evolutionist would like to

minimize the importance of this distinction, 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.

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. 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. Therefore, such

speciation only shows preexisting complexity, not a greater step in

macroevolutionary development. There is no additional genetic

development as would be required for macroevolution. 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.

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

> ,

>

> > 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

>

--

www.goatrevolution.com

[Guest guest]

,

> 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

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

First, thank you for acknowledging that new genetic material is indeed

introduced into the genome. I will respond to this more fully in the

next day or two, and I will have to look into how finger and toe

numbers are regulated, but I will make several quick responses now.

I'm not even sure if all species have the same number of digits in the

forelegs and hindlegs; if they do, I suspect it is coordinated by the

homeotic genes. Homeotic genes are those that control anatomical

placement of structures. They communicate with the genes involved in

the specific structures during embryonic development -- kind of like

the former is a director and the latter are actors in a movie. It

would not surprise me if there were substantial communication and

feedback between those that control front digit development and those

that control hind digit development. But I would have to research it.

> Not only would we have to demonstrate that new material is being added

> to the gemone, but we would also have to demonstrate that the new

> material can generate complex traits and organs and organ systems. It

> is one thing to observe that genetic material is being added, and it

> is wholly another to discover why and how, for example, a new chamber

> for a heart can be structurally added, not just proteins and lipids,

> but a complex arrangement of structures, oriented just right in

> complex ways so as not to kill the organism before it evolved to a

> next level.

To return for a moment to your original and more complete explanation

for the obstacles that such a chamber addition would encounter, your

proposal rests on several false premises. Principally, it rests on

the concept that nerve placement, blood vessel placement, and

" leakage " are mapped out by genes.

Although there are genes for the communicatory compounds that are used

by nerves and blood vessels to find their target, the actual spatial

mapping is not controlled by a genetic blueprint, but is determined by

direct communication between the growing nerve/vessel and its target.

There is no genetic basis for preventing leakage. The prevention of

leakage is a fundamental physicochemical property of phospholipid

bilayers. Artificial phospholipid bilayers or spontaneously assembled

phospholipid bilayers that do not contain any genes whatsoever do not

leak. If they are cut, they self-heal. This is not genetic, but is

simply the laws of chemistry, much like anything that goes up must

come down, whether it has the genes of an apple or has no genes like a

rock.

Little is known -- or at least if it is known I don't know it -- of

exactly how embryonic structures develop, but it is pretty clear that

the cell-to-cell communication of the developing cells themselves is

an integral part of the process, and that there is no actual " genetic

map " of the structure. It would be impossible for there to be some

kind of 3-D coordinate system where each coordinate had a gene. This

type of system is not just impossible for evolution to build new

structures upon; it is simply impossible in and of itself. It would

require far to many genes than are observed and probably too many

genes than are possible.

Becker presented evidence supporting the idea that a DC current

generated by perineural cells is a regulating factor in mapping out

the development of anatomic structures, including in the regeneration

of amputated salamnder limbs. Whether or not he is right, there are

clearly factors that are epigenetic that regulate the symmetry and

other factors. Whatever these factors are that contribute to the

first chamber or two chambers of a heart would contribute likewise to

the second chamber or second two chambers.

> Evolution does not even remotely explain the origin of

> complex and new organs or organ parts. Mathematically, random

> mutations would kill an organism before complex new fully functioning

> systems would come " online. " Masses of tissue mutating in slow

> progression over generations, would not only have to project what they

> are trying to form, but also have to be non-obstructive to the

> survival of the species for macroevotion to happen on a grand scale.

Your example of an additional chamber or chambers to the heart is, I

believe, analogous to an animal growing a second set of wings. Were

they to do so, the masses of slow mutations required would produce

structures that would interfere with the functionality of the first

set of wings.

Yet, in drosophila, the fruit flies, there is a mutation in a homeotic

gene -- I believe it is probably a duplication of the homeotic gene

that controls wing placement -- that leads to two sets of wings rather

than one. It is only a single mutation that is required, and the

second set of wings does not interfere with the first set of wings,

nor does it develop slowly beginning without functionality.

Although this is not a heart, the principle is the same. The homeotic

gene provides signals providing a context in which associated cells

engage in a communicative process, and the symmetry, mapping, and

other coordinated properties are a result of that interactive process.

In Drosophilia, merely duplicating the homeotic gene produces a

doubling of the number of wings all in one mutation, placed properly

and to my knowledge fully functional.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

New set of wings, suggest duplication of an organ already existing.

With a new heart chamber, a great challenge would be not just to

duplicate an entire thing again or part of a thing but to generate

parts that form a unique function and have unique orientation and

structure. Changing from a two to a three chambered heart, for

example is not just like duplicating an appendage as a facsimile,

especially since the heart is asymmetrical, the new chamber cannot be

identical to any other chamber. How would a new chamber know where to

grow? How would the organism know when to grow a new chamber? Why

are we not seeing two chambered organisms attempting to evolve a third

chamber like other kinds of organisms have? For that matter, what

prevents us from seeing the rapid growth of new features such as new

heart chambers, if such evolution has occurred in the past? If there

are such mechanisms that can produce almost immediate generation of

additional limbs, then what prevents entirely new organs from being

produced at the same rapid rate? We should be observing entirely new

organs or organ parts, not just duplicates of what is already there.

Heck, duplication happens all the time with sexual reproduction, but

duplication of entirely USEFUL new organs and organ parts happens so

slowly that we are not observing it. In that case, it probably does

not happen at all. I will venture to state that limits to variation

exist in the organism, as is demonstrated by observational heredity.

These same kinds of limiting factors are important to the survival of

kinds and species, and are one of the many reasons why macroevolution

is not observed and does not happen.

> Your example of an additional chamber or chambers to the heart is, I

> believe, analogous to an animal growing a second set of wings. Were

> they to do so, the masses of slow mutations required would produce

> structures that would interfere with the functionality of the first

> set of wings.

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

>

>> >

>> >

>> > If there is a God, he laughs at people who worship him so

> simplistically.

>> >

>

> ³Some of the most holy people (Mother Theresa, St. Therese of Lisieux,

> for example) worshiped our Lord in the most simple ways. ³

>

> To equate simple and simplistic is simplistic.

>

[Guest guest]

you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave on a

cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus you see

leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He was. So,

yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord came to

earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look in the

Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a man's hand,

and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kings

palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and so on. I take

the Bible literally in passages as these.

Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man evolved

from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to summarize

it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

,

> I would have expected a better retort from you than that.

I was not making a retort. I was offering an analogy wherein a

physical process is credited with forming something that God is also

credited with creating, and alluding to the interpretation that God

creates things through the natural processes that he has also created.

> My stance is that God created man and woman, the Bible clearly

> states that we are balls of dirt, that God took the clay, formed man and

> breathed life into him. I didn't come from a monkey. Natural erosion is

> an entirely different matter.

In what hands did God " take " this clay? With what speech did God

" say " " Let us make man in our own image? " Does God have a larynx and

vocal cords, an elbow, arm, hand and five fingers with an opposable

thumb? Or does God " speak " and " take " and " form " things using the

natural processes he has created and the natural laws that are the

very physical manifestation of his will?

The Bible " clearly states " that the mountains smoke when the Lord

" touches " them. Does this negate the physical processes that we

observe to contribute to the eruption of volcanoes? Or,

alternatively, are these processes intimately interconnected to the

creative and active power of God?

Perhaps what the Bible is saying is not that we should expect to see a

giant hand descend from the heavens prior to each volcanic eruption,

but rather that nothing, even those things that we observe to be the

direct result of physical laws and so-called " natural " processes,

happens without the knowledge and will of God.

>People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded to

>science,

Someone may have said that, but I haven't. I did say you were

unfamiliar with evolutionary theory, and that is correct. It's also

fine if you aren't interesting in learning about it. I don't know

anything about string theory, and I don't think I can be faulted for

it. (Of course, I also don't have an opinion on it either, since I

don't know much about it.) And by " we " you actually mean much more

than " Christians, " because many Christians are scientists and have a

much different interpretation of Genesis than you do.

>but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the

>Bible, or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than

>we are.

Yet somehow there are many, many people who believe in the Bible and

also believe in evolution, and there are yet more who believe in God

and believe in evolution. So apparently there are people who are

closed-minded to neither.

> Do I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my

>friend, neither do you.

You are very right.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Implode,

what does that have to do with the price of peas? And don't you know that most

folks in the Bible Belt are democrats??? lol....but yes, I am a

republican.....however, before the Clinton era I was a professed democrat.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

> Hi ,

>

>> > its like this, you are a rude dude. It appears to me that you are

>> > as " closed minded " on the issues that I believe in as I am in evolution.

>> > Yes, it is sadly true, I do not believe in evolution. I believe that

>> >everything

>> > was created by God.

>

> I'm curious -- does this mean you don't believe in erosion because God

> created mountains?

>

> Chris

> --

> The Truth About Cholesterol

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

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

>

[Guest guest]

>

>

>

>

> ³

> you have to keep in mind that God came to earth in the person of Jesus Christ.

> The Bible in the NT states that the disciples were watching the Lord leave on

> a cloud, and an angel makes a very profound statement, " this same Jesus you

> see leaving will return in like manner " , meaning, we will see Him as He was.

> So, yes, God does have hands and feet and eyes, but even before the Lord came

> to earth, all thru the OT it is referenced that God has hands.........look in

> the Book of , 5:5 states " in the same hour came forth fingers of a man's

> hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of

> the kings palace and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote " ....and so

> on. I take the Bible literally in passages as these.

> Let me ask you the theory of evolution, does it imply that man evolved

> from the ape? Putting aside all of the other chatter, if you were to summarize

> it up in a statement, is this what it is saying?

> ²

>

> I find it totally offensive that you state this as fact. You can take your

> Jesus Christ and your bible and stick them where the proverbial sun don¹t

> shine. And I mean that respectfully.

[Guest guest]

> Not with the price of peas, but with the price of peace. So, you can keep

> your pro-death Jesus. I¹m not interested.

>

>

>

> ³Implode,

> what does that have to do with the price of peas? And don't you know that most

> folks in the Bible Belt are democrats??? lol....but yes, I am a

> republican.....however, before the Clinton era I was a professed democrat.

> ²

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> >

>> > So, my bet is that you¹re a Republican?

>> >

>> >

>> > ³Wow

>> > I would have expected a better retort from you than that. My stance is >>

that

>> > God created man and woman, the Bible clearly states that we are balls of

>> dirt,

>> > that God took the clay, formed man and breathed life into him. I didn't >>

come

>> > from a monkey. Natural erosion is an entirely different matter. Honestly,

>> > when I think of evolution, I think of " evolving " from a primitive way of

>> life

>> > to the modern live we all live now. Has the chemistry of man changed since

he

>> > was created? I don't think so. Has our ways of thinking changed?

>> Definitely.

>> > Is it because something in the brain chemistry has changed? I don't think

>> so.

>> > It is because of the knowledge that we have attained. I " ve made the

>> statement

>> > before, the Bible and science do agree. There are perhaps millions maybe

>> > billions of years between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. If you search the Bible, >>

you

>> > will find there was a world before this one. Was there man here then? I

>> don't

>> > know. But Lucifer was in charge of something here on earth. That could >>

have

>> > been the time of the dinosaurs. The grand canyons and such, according to

>> > scientists there was a cataclysmic flood that happened....the Bible states

>> > that. People say and have said here that we ( Christians) a closed minded

to

>> > science, but I would have to say that people who don't believe in the

>> Bible,

>> > or don't believe in God are as closed-minded or even more so than we are.

Do

>> > I have all the answers? Absolutely not, but then again my friend, neither

do

>> > you.

>> > ²

>> >

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> > I've been thinking some more on this and some of your other posts,

> > and have some new questions (lucky you . In your opinion, would it

> > be correct to say that the natural laws themselves appear inherently

> > non-random and purposeful?

>

> The natural laws are self-evidently decidedly non-random.

[snip]

>

> Whether this is " purposeful " or not is more of a matter of guess or faith.

Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the

entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>. The arrow of time is

a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not

demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one

distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless

pressed.

As to whether this has purpose, ABSOLUTELY! All of our technologies are

based on the laws of nature. We saw pictures of the earth from the moon

because of the non random and very useful laws that we could use to this

purpose. Very many examples exist, of course. All technologies are the

result of manipulating the laws of nature (even if the laws used weren't

know about when the technology was developed).

If you are looking for God in this order (not , Chris), you

would not be alone. I think God can most easily be found in

mathematics. Math is the language of science, and many observations

come solely from the possibilities that math presents. Black holes are

a prime example. Once we theoretical saw the possibilities, we started

looking for them.

An aside: You know, when the age of the universe comes up, I am always

astounded that some Young Earth Creationists question the big bang

theory. For you see, even Einstein resisted the notion of a beginning.

He saw God as the Great Mathematician, not some Creator. So when the

evidence of an inflationary universe (see Hubble's Law) basically showed

that there was a " In the Beginning, " this hammered a nail in the coffin

of the then popular steady state theory of things always being as they

are in the cosmos. Does anyone know why some Creationists dispute the

big bang?

> > Related to that, I also wanted to run by you another area under the

> > ID umbrella and see how you'd characterize it. I saw a documentary

> > called The Privileged Planet (based on the book Rare Earth) and it

> > basically challenges the conclusions of Carl Sagan in his book Pale

> > Blue Dot that there are likely tons of Earth-like planets out there

> > (I honestly don't know much about Sagan except he was an atheist who

> > gets a lot of face time on the Discovery Channel).

Carl Sagan was a highly distinguished astronomer and astrophysicist.

His books are pretty religiously charged, which may be why the ID

community doesn't like him.

> Anyhow, in this

> > documentary they assert that the universe is largely very hostile to

> > life, especially terrestrial life, and delve into the numerous

> > variables that all had to converge for Earth to sustain complex life-

> > being within the narrow hospitable zones of the galaxy and solar

> > system, planet of the right size and composition, right size moon,

> > type of sun, type of atmosphere, etc, etc. Then they take it one

> > step further and make the observation that the very conditions that

> > make a planet habitable coincidentally (or not) also make it ideal

> > for observing the universe and making scientific discoveries, which

> > some believe implies purpose.

The arguments presented in the movie are fallacious beyond belief. I

haven't time to go through them one by one, as much as I would love to.

First off, the universe is largely unexplored, so how in the world can

anyone conclude it is largely hostile to life? But like Sagan said,

their are billions and billions of stars in the Milky Way alone, and

there are billions and billions of galaxies- the estimate I saw recently

was 7 x 10^22 stars

(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/star_count_030722.html). Our

star is a pretty common main sequence star also. The universe is

billions of years old, and stars are created and destroyed regularly.

We have only the slightest observational ability due to our limited

lifespan. We aren't somehow privileged in this respect! In fact, we

become more privileged leaving the planet to observe!

Here is a Christian physicist's rebuttal of the design inference made in

The Privileged Planet.

http://www.ps.uci.edu/~kuehn/personal/asa2003.ppt

In the book _Life Everywhere_, astronomer Darling rebutted the

Rare-Earth arguments one-by-one. Lastly, NASA has information on just

what conditions we have found life thriving, and they are pretty variable:

http://astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov/overview.html

As for purpose and significance, it is up to the individual to find

those meanings in life. I highly recommend that you study the science

behind these ideas, . You are asking great questions. Seek, and

you shall find.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

It is undeniable that there are striking and multiple similarities

between organisms of similar types. We observe that nature uses a

great many extremely efficient methods of doing things, therefore

since survival requires efficiency, it is no surprise that many

similar organisms and dissimilar organisms share common traits. And

we can go on ad infinitum on that issue, but there is a logical step

missing here. When one says that there is common origin as a result

of there being multiple similarities, in spite of us observing

definite groups with hundreds of features different form their assumed

pre-existing relatives, there is a leap in reasoning. The missing

evidence of gradual development between groups requires that multiple

and rapid changes would have had to occur. We do observe hereditary

limits in groups and phyla. These limits we observe are essential for

the survival of organisms. Small incremental variations which we

observe do not account for the rapid multiple changes that we do not

observe.

When it is challenged that small changes are not adequate to explain

wholly new organs, we do not need more examples of small changes.

When it is challenged that wholly NEW organs are not forming, we do

not need examples of extra appendages of the same kind rapidly

developing. A great boon to evolution would be the visual and

observable generation of wholly new organs, therefore it is not

reasonable to assume that this phenomenon is occurring in real time,

since there is no news of this.

The assumption that the evolutionary tree is a fact, thus becomes the

proof that the evolutionary tree is a fact, because if there are

serious problems in the tree, evolutionists respond that there had to

have been transitional forms because evolution is true.

Therefore, it seems appropriate not only to catalog various instances

where multiple differences exist between phyla, but to catalog

differences of entirely new organs where there is no evidence of

gradual progression between phyla. Yet the evolutionist wants it both

ways. He wants to claim that slow gradual change is sufficient to

produce the vast varieties we observe, but this requires that vast

jumps had to occur for which there are totally circumstantial claims

and claims based on circular reasoning.

It now seems appropriate to catalog great jumps in differences between

phyla or species for which gradual changes cannot account, and to

identify species which are so different from any other identifiable

species that they do not fit in an evolutionary tree in any agreeable

location.

Notice, though, that anatomical homology shows a different theoretical

evolutionary tree than does chemistry. When protein sequences are

done we do not find the same relationships between species and phyla

as would be expected if the theoretical evolutionary tree based on

physical similarities is used, this is especially important when

reference is made to how little genetic change has to occur to account

for the same proteins and lipids coming together in the development of

a new species for the same organ types.

More problems coming . . .

[Guest guest]

I have almost a hundred EVOLUTION emails from NN. As fascinating as all

this is, can we now move on to another topic please?

.._,___

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

> Yes, the laws of physics demonstrate predictable order. However, the

> entropy of the universe is always increasing <g>.

I'm not sure what you intend this to mean. Are you using the

deliberate creationist distortion of the concept of entropy here?

> The arrow of time is

> a consideration here. Interestingly, temporal direction is not

> demonstrated in the laws of nature, yet we see time marching on in one

> distinct direction. But this is a big tangent I won't address unless

> pressed.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I guess because the esoteric

piece of philosophizing is out of my subject area. If you'd like to

explain, I'll read on, but won't press you. Rest assured that I won't

have the slightest idea what you mean until you elaborate.

> If you are looking for God in this order (not , Chris),

Eeks, I take that to mean I called . Sorry, .

> An aside: You know, when the age of the universe comes up, I am always

> astounded that some Young Earth Creationists question the big bang

> theory.

Nothing astounds me from that circle.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

> It is undeniable that there are striking and multiple similarities

> between organisms of similar types. We observe that nature uses a

> great many extremely efficient methods of doing things, therefore

> since survival requires efficiency, it is no surprise that many

> similar organisms and dissimilar organisms share common traits. And

> we can go on ad infinitum on that issue, but there is a logical step

> missing here. When one says that there is common origin as a result

> of there being multiple similarities, in spite of us observing

> definite groups with hundreds of features different form their assumed

> pre-existing relatives, there is a leap in reasoning.

Well you will have to give me a specific example of what kind of

counter-evidence you are talking about. Over and over again I have

met your challenge to provide explanations for how things could

sensibly have evolved, with evidence for intermediate features, with

evidence for the mechanisms of evolution and so on. If you are going

to keep insisting that each specific individual detail be explained in

full detail before you will acknowledge the fact that there is an

overwhelming amount of evidence for evolution, you will have to at a

minimum offer specific examples.

> The missing

> evidence of gradual development between groups requires that multiple

> and rapid changes would have had to occur.

I just wrote pages worth of information explaining in detail the

evolution of three separate organs -- mitochondria, chloroplasts and

multi-chambered hearts -- and without responding to a single point you

dismiss every painful detial I wrote and claim there is no evidence of

gradual development.

Let's recap very quickly. If you want details, reference the

multi-page tomes I wrote yesterday.

***Mitochondria/Chloroplast Intermediates***

-- We observe alpha-proteobacteria essentially identical to those we

believe mitochondria evolved from; we observe cyanobacteria that look

exactly like chloroplasts.

-- We observe protists that eat the types of bacteria believed to form

these organelles for food. These protists are obligate omnivores that

feed on these types of bacteria by engulfing them, but the bacteria to

not live within the protists.

-- We observe other protists that harbor these types of bacteria in an

endosymbiotic relationship, living within them. In these cases, the

relationship is obligate. There are three classes of

alpha-proteobacteria that are found living only inside protists.

-- We observe algae that have true chloroplasts, but these

chloroplasts retain the type of cell wall that is only found in

bacteria. No other chloroplasts possess this cell wall.

-- All other chloroplasts (and mitochondria) lack the cell wall but

retain the double membrane that is an extreme oddity and coincidence

outside the explanation that they evolved by entering through the

membrane and pinching it off.

-- In the simplest protists and yeasts that have mitochondria or

chloroplasts (only mitochondria in yeasts) we observe that the

organelle encodes almost all of its own proteins and the nucleus

encodes only a few.

-- As we move up the chain of complexity, we see that more and more

mitochondrial or chloroplast genes are encoded by the nucleus and less

by the organelle itself. There is a gradation, and the most complex

organisms have almost all their genes encoded by the nucleus.

Where do you see the missing intermediate? We see every intermediate

stage we could possibly expect to see right before us, all happening

as we speak right now, all happening as you declare repeatedly " there

is no evidence for macroevolution, " " there is no evidence for

macroevolution, " while the most remarkable and most significant piece

of macroevolution to ever happen unfolds repeatedly before us.

Likewise, I explained a perfectly reasonable case for how chambers of

the heart would develop gradually by septa separating the chambers,

not by the sudden addition of new chambers. I pointed out numerous

cases where we do in fact witness functional intermediates. I further

pointed out that there are thousands of species of fish and that

neither of us know enough about comparative fish anatomy to declare

whether there is or isn't intermediate hearts with a partial septum

separating the atrium. I further asked you if you knew this not to be

the case, and you unsurprisingly failed to answer my question.

> We do observe hereditary

> limits in groups and phyla. These limits we observe are essential for

> the survival of organisms. Small incremental variations which we

> observe do not account for the rapid multiple changes that we do not

> observe.

We observe both rapid changes and gradual changes all over the place.

You state laws of what we do and do not observe and state requirements

for multiple simultaneous mutations that I have repeatedly refuted in

detail. You ignore my refutations and restate your position again.

> When it is challenged that small changes are not adequate to explain

> wholly new organs, we do not need more examples of small changes.

That is not what I gave; you challenged whether small changes could

account for the evolution of the 4-chambered heart, and I gave you a

painfully detailed explanation of how we not only observe functional

intermediates but how the slow and gradual evolution of the

4-chambered heart could be beneficial at every step of the way,

further explaining where we would expect on the one hand and not

expect on the other for there to be selective pressure encouraging

this process. You ignored all of this.

> When it is challenged that wholly NEW organs are not forming, we do

> not need examples of extra appendages of the same kind rapidly

> developing.

What on earth is your evidence that new organs are not forming? Where

on earth do you get the idea that evolutionary theory predicts random

new organs just pop out of nowhere each and every day? And where do

you get the idea that we actually observe in detail even a fraction of

the evolution that does occur in nature?

We have named and are able to culture 1% of bacteria in the

laboratory. Yet here you are explaining in detail what we do and do

not observe in bacteria as if we had a remote clue what happens in 99%

of bacteria.

> A great boon to evolution would be the visual and

> observable generation of wholly new organs, therefore it is not

> reasonable to assume that this phenomenon is occurring in real time,

> since there is no news of this.

I'm sorry, but we do exactly see the repetition of the evolution of

mitochondria and chloroplasts. These are the single most immensely

important organs to develop. They provide the basis for everything

else to develop in eukaryotic organisms. And we see it happening to

the best we possibly could.

Again, we see the heart of the turtle and lizard with -- wait; what is

it? 5 chambers? 3 chambers? -- the *intermediate* ventricular

partitioning. You can damn bet if a 5-chamber heart ever became

useful over a three-chambered heart, the turtle and lizards would be

well on their way to be evolving it. For now, their two partial

ventricular septa are functional to prevent excessive mixing of

oxygenated and dexoygenated blood in the ventricle. Intermediate.

Functional intermediate.

> The assumption that the evolutionary tree is a fact, thus becomes the

> proof that the evolutionary tree is a fact, because if there are

> serious problems in the tree, evolutionists respond that there had to

> have been transitional forms because evolution is true.

When we see overwhelming evidence for evolution in thousands upon

thousands of cases from entirely independent lines of evidence, then

we find it most reasonable to interpret the uncertainty of what we do

not yet know as if it is assimilable to current theory. When we

observe something in direct conflict with current theory, by contrast,

we revise current theory. You have not presented anything in direct

conflict with evolutionary theory, and no one would demand that we

throw out evolutionary theory because there are things we do not yet

understand about it unless they had an established commitment to

opposing the theory on other grounds.

I do not insist that someone provide me the shipping paperwork to

prove to me that a banana really came from a banana tree in Ecuador.

I consider it a reasonable proposition that since all bananas to my

knowledge come from banana trees, that when a claim is made that a new

banana whose precise history is unknown came from such a tree, that

the claim is indeed probable and I will accept it. If I am a banana

auditor, I might insist on seeing the paperwork, but I would still

believe that it came from a banana tree even if I wasn't sure whether

it came from Ecuador or Chile. If someone were to provide evidence

that bananas come from cherry trees I might revise my theory and begin

demanding evidence that it not only came from such-and-such a country

but indeed came from a banana tree within that country. In the mean

time, current theory works.

> Therefore, it seems appropriate not only to catalog various instances

> where multiple differences exist between phyla, but to catalog

> differences of entirely new organs where there is no evidence of

> gradual progression between phyla.

Since anti-evolutionist theory predicts that all computers grow into

eagles, we should expect to see computers growing into eagles

everywhere. Ok, see how easy it is to make up my own predictions

about your theory and claim that your theory is refuted by lack of

observation of its predictions?

> Yet the evolutionist wants it both

> ways. He wants to claim that slow gradual change is sufficient to

> produce the vast varieties we observe, but this requires that vast

> jumps had to occur for which there are totally circumstantial claims

> and claims based on circular reasoning.

The scientist who is willing to accurately catalog what we see in

nature regardless of her or his theoretical persuasions will

acknowledge that we observe an array of mechanisms by which genetic

material is introduced or modified, and that some of these produce

gradual changes and some of them produce jumps. This is not circular;

it is acknolwedging the full extent of what happens.

The gradual growth of a septum dividing a heart into chambers is

gradual. It is the most reasonalbe explanation for the division of

the atrium from the ventricle and for the division of the atrium into

two atria, and we do in fact observe these itnermediates. This is an

example of gradual change, and we have identified mechanisms of such

gradual change.

The endosymbiotic relationship of protists to precursors of

mitochondrial and chloroplasts is a giant leap. We observe it

happening. The fact that we observe this does not negate the fact

that we observe gradual changes such as could produce divisions of

heart chambers.

> It now seems appropriate to catalog great jumps in differences between

> phyla or species for which gradual changes cannot account, and to

> identify species which are so different from any other identifiable

> species that they do not fit in an evolutionary tree in any agreeable

> location.

Can you give some examples?

> Notice, though, that anatomical homology shows a different theoretical

> evolutionary tree than does chemistry. When protein sequences are

> done we do not find the same relationships between species and phyla

> as would be expected if the theoretical evolutionary tree based on

> physical similarities is used, this is especially important when

> reference is made to how little genetic change has to occur to account

> for the same proteins and lipids coming together in the development of

> a new species for the same organ types.

I respectfully ask you to provide a source to support this claim.

It is contrary to what I have read everywhere else. For one of many examples:

===========

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html

[After providing paragraphs explaining the reasoning of the calculated

probabilities in the following paragraph...]

Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein

sequence. The " null hypothesis " given above is false. In the absence

of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively

less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093). Thus, the high degree of similarity

in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of

common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c

proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance

of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less

than 10-29. The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly

related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid

differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this

probability is less than 10-25.

===============

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately, some formatting got messed up in a post I made last

night. I would like to offer this brief clarification.

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

[Quoting from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html]

> Humans and chimpanzees have the exact same cytochrome c protein

> sequence. The " null hypothesis " given above is false. In the absence

> of common descent, the chance of this occurrence is conservatively

> less than 10-93 (1 out of 1093).

Given the observed variation in the cytochrome c amino acid sequence

across all forms of life, and the functional unimportance of 2/3 of

those amino acids, the chance of this happening in the absence of

common descent is actually 1 in

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0\

00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

>Thus, the high degree of similarity

> in these proteins is a spectacular corroboration of the theory of

> common descent. Furthermore, human and chimpanzee cytochrome c

> proteins differ by ~10 amino acids from all other mammals. The chance

> of this occurring in the absence of a hereditary mechanism is less

> than 10-29.

This should read that the chance of this occuring in the absence of

common descent is 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

> The yeast Candida krusei is one of the most distantly

> related eukaryotic organisms from humans. Candida has 51 amino acid

> differences from the human sequence. A conservative estimate of this

> probability is less than 10-25.

This should read that the chance of this occuring in the absence of

common descent is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Moreover, the hypothesis that closely related organisms share amino

acid squences in ubiquitous genes with unnecessary similarities due to

heredity can be falsified in a number of ways:

====================

Without assuming the theory common descent, the most probable result

is that the cytochrome c protein sequences in all these different

organisms would be very different from each other. If this were the

case, a phylogenetic analysis would be impossible, and this would

provide very strong evidence for a genealogically unrelated, perhaps

simultaneous, origin of species (Dickerson 1972; Yockey 1992; Li

1997).

Furthermore, the very basis of this argument could be undermined

easily if it could be demonstrated (1) that species specific

cytochrome c proteins were functional exclusively in their respective

organisms, or (2) that no other cytochrome c sequence could function

in an organism other than its own native cytochrome c, or (3) that an

observed mechanism besides heredity can causally correlate the

sequence of a ubiquitous protein with a specific organismic

morphology.

===============

Yet none of these potential falsifications is true. Numbers 1 and 2

are shown to be false, and there is no evidence or plausible

explanation for number 3. Granted, none of this *proves*

macroevolution.

After all, there is still a 1 in

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0\

00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

that chimpanzees and humans are NOT descended from a common ancestor.

I suppose any " evolutionist " would be doing the public a major

disservice if she or he were not to readily admit that possibility to

the public.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was a

religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...I think

is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he

single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He

even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make the

statement all came from one ancestor. He was tried and proven to be a

fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still being taught in the science

books today. Someone here made the statement that the children should know the

truth. That is what Kent Hovind is trying to do.

I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>

>You have a double standard. When you quote from 1972, it is relevant.

>When I do, it is outdated. You are having trouble seeing how

>unreasonable it is to assert that decades of past observation by

>scientists cannot be invalidated by currant observations AND it be

>reasonable for people to believe in evolution throughout the past

>decades.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

> One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was

>a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...

I think his name is Haeckel.

>I think

>is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he

>single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He

>even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make

>the statement all came from one ancestor.

Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

evolutionary history during embryonic development.

> He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is

still

>being taught in the science books today.

That's an outright lie.

> Someone here made the statement

>that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

trying to do.

> I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

modern textbooks, check out this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

> ­ I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer.

> Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I see

> that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are not.

>

>

>

> ..................,

>

>> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution >>

was

>> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...

>

> I think his name is Haeckel.

>

>> >I think

>> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he

>> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He

>> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make

>> >the statement all came from one ancestor.

>

> Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

> demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

> majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

> of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

> evolutionary history during embryonic development.

>

>> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it

>> is still

>> >being taught in the science books today.

>

> That's an outright lie.

>

>> > Someone here made the statement

>> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

> trying to do.

>> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

>

> I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

> degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

> completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

> attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

> investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

> don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

> your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

>

> In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

> and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

> modern textbooks, check out this article:

>

> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

>

> It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

> saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

>

> Chris

" Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

let's see how the out come is......but let's also investigate what he has been

teaching. I'm sure that if you try, you will definitely be able to dig up some

more " dirt " on him. That is of no interest to me. What is of interest is the

truths that he has been teaching about evolution. As stated,,,,,,he is

having a hard time getting any evolutionist to debate him.

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

> ,

> have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind?

Great guy. He has been arrested for doing evil, er um, God's work:

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01/6\

07140333/1006

" A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land

in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including

failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats

against investigators.

" Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife,

Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500

from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. "

Sorry for the long url, but I couldn't access the snipper just now.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

It amazes me....as a scientist...one should be eager to learn. I made the

statement that I was going to review his material and " learn " what he is

teaching. As far as his credibility.....that remains to be proven. But by all

means.......I " m learning. As far as his " pristine " nature....I know beyond a

shadow of a doubt there is NO ONE who is perfect. Every one of us are human

beings, and we ALL make mistakes. Every one of you have a double set of

standards here...that is apparent. But hey, I want to know the truth and I

always approach it with an open mind. Why are you so afraid that someone will

prove scientifically that you silly theory is exactly that...a theory? From

what I've already read, it appears to me it takes more faith to believe in

evolution, than it does to believe in a living God.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> ­ I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer.

> Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I

see

> that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are

not.

>

>

>

> ..................,

>

>> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution

>>

was

>> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...

>

> I think his name is Haeckel.

>

>> >I think

>> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory,

he

>> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He

>> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make

>> >the statement all came from one ancestor.

>

> Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

> demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

> majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

> of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

> evolutionary history during embryonic development.

>

>> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and

it

>> is still

>> >being taught in the science books today.

>

> That's an outright lie.

>

>> > Someone here made the statement

>> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

> trying to do.

>> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

>

> I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

> degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

> completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

> attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

> investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

> don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

> your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

>

> In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

> and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

> modern textbooks, check out this article:

>

> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

>

> It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

> saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

>

> Chris

" Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

[Guest guest]

He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is

still

>being taught in the science books today.

That's an outright lie.

what part of this is an outright lie?

Re: Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

,

> One statement that he kept making over and over again was that evolution was

>a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of Haeckler...

I think his name is Haeckel.

>I think

>is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's theory, he

>single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an embryologist. He

>even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to make

>the statement all came from one ancestor.

Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

evolutionary history during embryonic development.

> He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it

is still

>being taught in the science books today.

That's an outright lie.

> Someone here made the statement

>that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

trying to do.

> I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

modern textbooks, check out this article:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

Chris

--

The Truth About Cholesterol

Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You:

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

[Guest guest]

> Might it be for other reasons than that they fear his debating skill? Nah....

>

>

>

> ³Deanna,

> let's see how the out come is......but let's also investigate what he has been

> teaching. I'm sure that if you try, you will definitely be able to dig up

> some more " dirt " on him. That is of no interest to me. What is of interest is

> the truths that he has been teaching about evolution. As

> stated,,,,,,he is having a hard time getting any evolutionist to debate him.

> ²

>

> EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> >

>> > ,

>> > have you ever heard of a gentleman by the name of Dr. Kent Hovind?

>

> Great guy. He has been arrested for doing evil, er um, God's work:

>

> http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060714/NEWS01

> /607140333/1006

> " A Pensacola evangelist who owns the defunct Dinosaur Adventure Land

> in Pensacola was arrested Thursday on 58 federal charges, including

> failing to pay $473,818 in employee-related taxes and making threats

> against investigators.

>

> " Of the 58 charges, 44 were filed against Kent Hovind and his wife,

> Jo, for evading bank reporting requirements as they withdrew $430,500

> from AmSouth Bank between July 20, 2001, and Aug. 9, 2002. "

>

> Sorry for the long url, but I couldn't access the snipper just now.

>

> Deanna

>

>

[Guest guest]

> I¹d say that it¹s a mark of a rational person to spend one¹s time wisely.

> From what I have gleaned from searching a bit online, this guy is a true

> scumbag/crackpot/idiot, and it therefore wouldn¹t be rational for me to spend

> time and effort trying to take him seriously. Just like I don¹t take you

> seriously, except as a sign of the evil/ignorance that is trying to take over

> this country.

>

>

> ³It amazes me....as a scientist...one should be eager to learn. I made the

> statement that I was going to review his material and " learn " what he is

> teaching. As far as his credibility.....that remains to be proven. But by

> all means.......I " m learning. As far as his " pristine " nature....I know

> beyond a shadow of a doubt there is NO ONE who is perfect. Every one of us

> are human beings, and we ALL make mistakes. Every one of you have a double

> set of standards here...that is apparent. But hey, I want to know the truth

> and I always approach it with an open mind. Why are you so afraid that

> someone will prove scientifically that you silly theory is exactly that...a

> theory? From what I've already read, it appears to me it takes more faith to

> believe in evolution, than it does to believe in a living God.

> ²

>

> Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> > ­ I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much beer.

>> > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements, I

>> see

>> > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are

>> not.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ..................,

>> >

>>>> >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that

>>>> evolution >>

> was

>>>> >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of

>>>> Haeckler...

>> >

>> > I think his name is Haeckel.

>> >

>>>> >> >I think

>>>> >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's

>>>> theory, he

>>>> >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an

>>>> embryologist. He

>>>> >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to

make

>>>> >> >the statement all came from one ancestor.

>> >

>> > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

>> > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

>> > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

>> > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

>> > evolutionary history during embryonic development.

>> >

>>>> >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it,

>>>> and it

>>> >> is still

>>>> >> >being taught in the science books today.

>> >

>> > That's an outright lie.

>> >

>>>> >> > Someone here made the statement

>>>> >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

>> > trying to do.

>>>> >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

>> >

>> > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

>> > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

>> > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

>> > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

>> > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

>> > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

>> > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

>> >

>> > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

>> > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

>> > modern textbooks, check out this article:

>> >

>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

>> >

>> > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

>> > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

>> >

>> > Chris

>

> " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

>

[Guest guest]

The world is full of kooks...unfortunately.

EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

> As stated,,,,,,he is having a hard time getting any

> evolutionist to debate him.

Which is probably because serious scientists don't waste time debating

with kooks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/

[Guest guest]

are you a scientist? God forbid.....however....again your emails speak " volumes "

for themselves...as far as being evil goes. I too my dear don't take you

seriously.......you remind me of a child who doesn't get enough attention and

will do anything to stand out.

Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt

>

>> > ­ I¹ll just try this once, and then give up. I¹ve had too much

beer.

>> > Why do you spend the time on these people? For all of our disagreements,

I

>> see

>> > that you are a serious person, interested in finding the truth. They are

>> not.

>> >

>> >

>> >

>> > ..................,

>> >

>>>> >> > One statement that he kept making over and over again was that

>>>> evolution >>

> was

>>>> >> >a religion. And in one part, he discussed a man by the name of

>>>> Haeckler...

>> >

>> > I think his name is Haeckel.

>> >

>>>> >> >I think

>>>> >> >is how it was spelled. He was German, and after reading Darwin's

>>>> theory, he

>>>> >> >single-handedly converted Germany to evolution. He was an

>>>> embryologist. He

>>>> >> >even faked the pictures of the embryos of humans and other animals to

make

>>>> >> >the statement all came from one ancestor.

>> >

>> > Haeckel himself would have said he embellished them in order to

>> > demonstrate a point. He was pretty open about it. He did, however,

>> > majorly distort a significant portion of his drawings to fit his idea

>> > of recapitulation, which held that the organisms repeats its

>> > evolutionary history during embryonic development.

>> >

>>>> >> > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it,

>>>> and it

>>> >> is still

>>>> >> >being taught in the science books today.

>> >

>> > That's an outright lie.

>> >

>>>> >> > Someone here made the statement

>>>> >> >that the children should know the truth. That is what Kent Hovind is

>> > trying to do.

>>>> >> > I'm sure I will enjoy them, and I'm looking forward to learning.

>> >

>> > I find it fascinating that it doesn't faze you that Hovind has fake

>> > degrees and is a criminal. I don't know whether these charges are

>> > completely true or not, but they would give me pause before

>> > attributing sparkling motivations to the man -- I would at least

>> > investigate them before entrusted my children's minds with him. They

>> > don't affect the credibility of his arguments; I'm just referring to

>> > your unquestioning attribution of pristine motivations to him.

>> >

>> > In any case, if you'd like a good review of Haeckel and what he did

>> > and did not do, and what of Haeckel's thoughts are and aren't found in

>> > modern textbooks, check out this article:

>> >

>> > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

>> >

>> > It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is

>> > saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar.

>> >

>> > Chris

>

> " Quick, man. Cling tenaciously to my buttocks "

>