On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:35:25 +0000 (UTC), Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They >were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were >deliberately in force. The complexity of the experimental design, which >was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the >chemicals produced.
I can intelligently design a model of God - it will have a big "Smite" button on it.
Since I can intelligently design a model of God therefore God must be intelligently designed.
since we now all agree that God was designed we can leave off worshipping God and start worshipping the Designer of God or DoG.
Kalkidas <e...@joes.pub> wrote in news:Xns9CBD61890A195eatjoespub@ 202.177.16.121:
> The Miller-Urey experiments were products of intelligent design. They > were carefully controlled, and the best known initial conditions were > deliberately in force.
But not because that was the only way those conditions could arise. The situation could happen in nature, that was the POINT. The experiment was set up to simulate a specific natural environment because that was quicker and simpler than starting with a methane planet and baking on low for a few million years.
> The complexity of the experimental design, which > was a product of human brains, far exceeded the complexity of the > chemicals produced.
"On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), in article <136f1213-7ab5-4084-8d1e-e31550c22...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Davej stated..."
>On Nov 8, 3:30=A0am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is >> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, >> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. >> [...]
>I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God >created H1N1 to kill children. It didn't evolve -- it was created. >Then you want to propose that the reason God did this was because an >insufficient number of goats were being sacrificed and that more >uppity women need to be stoned to death. We need to make God happy or >the crops will fail and the cows will stop giving milk.
A creationist may say that diseases were not the creation of God, but were the result of the Fall of Man.
Perhaps this would be as good as any introduction to the "What" question for creationism:
The bacterial flagellum? The tree of life? The relationship between the human body and the bodies of chimps and other apes? The enhanced ability to hunt that excellent vision gives to predators?
-- ---Tom S. the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to the currant jelly. Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), evolutionguru
<albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Okay, I give up: what is "evolutionist?"
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
> "On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 09:21:55 -0800 (PST), in article > <136f1213-7ab5-4084-8d1e-e31550c22...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Davej > stated..."
> >On Nov 8, 3:30=A0am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is > >> because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > >> dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. > >> [...]
> >I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God > >created H1N1 to kill children. It didn't evolve -- it was created. > >Then you want to propose that the reason God did this was because an > >insufficient number of goats were being sacrificed and that more > >uppity women need to be stoned to death. We need to make God happy or > >the crops will fail and the cows will stop giving milk.
> A creationist may say that diseases were not the creation of God, > but were the result of the Fall of Man.
> Perhaps this would be as good as any introduction to the "What" > question for creationism:
> *What* sort of thing is a result of creation?
> What sort of thing is not?
I think I told you before, but for the benefit of others:
A Panda's Thumb regular named "FL" once admitted that human conception was a "design actuation event." While a skilled IDer, would just play word games with "design actuation event," any reasonable person would interpret it as an "intervention." Which means that FL's admission undermines the DI's has painstaking effort to suggest (but never state outright) that those events occured "so long ago that it makes no sense to speculate on where or when they occurred". Also, aside from early admissions of common descent by some major IDers, they have been careful not to commit to any of those "interventions" being "in-vivo" or requiring new cells built from nonliving chemical systems.
> The bacterial flagellum? The tree of life? The relationship between > the human body and the bodies of chimps and other apes? The enhanced > ability to hunt that excellent vision gives to predators?
I know I can trust you to keep asking, if only to show how they evade the questions. It's the bait-takers that I worry about.
> -- > ---Tom S. > the failure to nail currant jelly to a wall is not due to the nail; it is due to > the currant jelly. > Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to William Thayer, 1915 July 2
On 8 Nov, 17:21, Davej <galt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 3:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is > > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. > > [...]
> I think it's amazing that idiots like you want to propose that God > created H1N1 to kill children. It didn't evolve -- it was created. > Then you want to propose that the reason God did this was because an > insufficient number of goats were being sacrificed and that more > uppity women need to be stoned to death. We need to make God happy or > the crops will fail and the cows will stop giving milk.
In my experience, sacrificing goats doesn't really help with crops, but gets the tomatoes up a treat. Virgins and lambs work well for broccoli. Don't know about milk.
<f...@verizon.net> wrote: > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > (snip PRATTs)
> Greetings newcomer, if you are indeed one.
> You seem to have problems with evolution. I have heard them all > before, but what I haven't read yet is what you think happened instead > that lacks all these "problems."
> So please describe your alternative, however tentative, in detail, > *without* reference to any problems you have with evolution. Start > will how many years ago you think the first life appeared on earth, > and whether humans share common ancestors with other species. Note > that an agreement with evolution on those two questions does not > necessarily imply that you accept the Darwinian mechanism, as Michael > Behe exemplifies.
Seven hours and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not seen your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some time within the next 1,000 years.
-- http://desertphile.org Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
evolutionguru wrote: > A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. > Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by > persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions > to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on > their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and > unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
> Evolution has never been observed. > Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. > There are no transitional fossils. > The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution > proceeds, by random chance. > Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
How do you explain the variety of life on earth that we see? How did those millions of species get there? When? Who or what put them there?
State your case. Since your claim is all about the lack of scientific validity of evolution I would expect to see your alternative in the form of a scientific case made with supporting evidence.
>> In message >> <1c0b69b9-92d2-4309-8713-0041b1088...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> writes >>>Evolution has never been observed.
>> Lie.
>I don't even think this guy rises to the level of lie. To lie he'd have >to know what the right answer was and choose to say something else. He's >just vaguely spouting stuff from church or Jack Chick that sounds good to >him.
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive is > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them. > Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by > persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions > to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on > their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism > to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and > unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science > education generally. Even advanced college biology students often > understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few > have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Anyone who states this hasn't got the foggiest clue what the second law of thermodynamics is.
The second law of thermodynamics states that when an irreversible (or spontaneous) process occurs in a system, the entropy of the system plus the entropy its environment increases. Precisely how does evolution violate this?
> There are no transitional fossils.
Every fossil is transitional. Every living organism is transitional. You are transitional.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution > proceeds, by random chance.
Where does the theory of evolution say this?
Origin of life is the subject of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution describes what happens after life already exists.
Random chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution does not proceed exclusively by random chance. Natural selection is not random chance. Gene flow is not random chance.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
A theory is as good as it gets in science. There is never proof in science. Germ theory is not proven, it is well established. Gravity is not proven, it is well established. Evolution is not proven, it is well established. Proof is for mathematics and liquor.
Germ theory, gravity, atomic theory, general relativity, thermodynamics, and evolution are all theories. All are well established. None are proven.
**** No; THE major reason why evolution arguments can sound so persuasive is because THEY HAVE FACTS AND EVIDENCE to support their claims. You, on the other hand, have nothing but ignorant lies ............ like these!
Evolutionists wrongly believe that their views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology and allusions to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge and understanding on their part. But they haven’t come close to demonstrating evolutionism to be more than an ever-changing theory with a highly questionable and unscientific basis. (The situation isn’t helped by poor science education generally. Even advanced college biology students often understand little more than the dogma of evolutionary theory, and few have the time [or the guts] to question its scientific validity.)
The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical scientific data and/or scientific laws.
Evolution has never been observed. Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There are no transitional fossils. The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance. Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not > science.
You're making a false distinction between:
a) A new thing b) A new version of an old thing
You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the concept leaves no room for controversy.
> Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
> (NOT variation, changes in > the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a > creature?
Yes, proof of increase in DNA: easy. It's called 'addition mutation'. I will provide it if you request it, for the sake of answering your question. But that wasn't your point was it?
Your essential request is nonsensical. You're making an old, old tiresome silly classic error.
> On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: > > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool > > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over > > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different > > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful > > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not > > science.
> You're making a false distinction between:
> a) A new thing > b) A new version of an old thing
> You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is > the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation > within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a > miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' > section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. > 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship > that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the > concept leaves no room for controversy.
> > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than > > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
> Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species. IOW when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in the end. Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you have is a variation of the same species. Even should the dog become reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take place.
Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small changes over time with an unguided process.
One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate for himself is micro evolution.
We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of pups.
> > (NOT variation, changes in > > the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a > > creature?
> Yes, proof of increase in DNA: easy. It's called 'addition mutation'. > I will provide it if you request it, for the sake of answering your > question. > But that wasn't your point was it?
> Your essential request is nonsensical. You're making an old, old > tiresome silly classic error.
> On Nov 9, 2:57 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: > > > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool > > > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over > > > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different > > > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful > > > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not > > > science.
> > You're making a false distinction between:
> > a) A new thing > > b) A new version of an old thing
> > You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is > > the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation > > within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a > > miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' > > section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. > > 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship > > that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the > > concept leaves no room for controversy.
> > > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than > > > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
> > Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
> I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered > to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species.
So freaking what? Of course it will be morphologically and genetically *similar*. If it wasn't, it would falsify not only evolutionary theory but blow apart most of the science of biology! However, it's a morphologically and genetically distinct species, which makes this an example of macroevolution.
> IOW > when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in > the end.
...and if we didn't, it would falsify evolutionary theory.
> Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you > have is a variation of the same species.
No, you end up with a *new* species.
> Even should the dog become > reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of > the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce > together.
...which means that it is a different species, and an example of macroevolution.
> The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
> I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such > exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a > population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take > place.
So what stops changes accumulating over billions of generations so that fish *can* evolve into mammals?
More to the point, if all these "kinds" were created separately, why do they all fit neatly into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolutionary theory?
> Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small > changes over time with an unguided process.
> One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense > especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate > for himself is micro evolution.
Actually, speciation - and you have accepted that it occurs - is macroevolution.
> We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of > pups.
So if all these "kinds" were created separately, why do they all fit neatly into the nested hierarchy predicted by evolutionary theory?
> > > (NOT variation, changes in > > > the genecode that already exist) or increase of information(DNA) in a > > > creature?
> > Yes, proof of increase in DNA: easy. It's called 'addition mutation'. > > I will provide it if you request it, for the sake of answering your > > question. > > But that wasn't your point was it?
> > Your essential request is nonsensical. You're making an old, old > > tiresome silly classic error.
On Nov 9, 5:36 am, "PepsiFr...@teranews.com" <bobsyoung...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
Thankyou for compiling these classic hoary old fallacies so that they may be disposed of in bulk.
> Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution is observed in every sense.
Evolution, according to evolutionary theory, does not consist of any processes which we cannot casually observe today. Variation within a population(innaccurate reproduction), and influence of the environment on which members of a population do and do not reproduce (non-random selection).
And yes, speciation is observed (reproductive isolation of two populations losing the ability to interbreed).
If you think there are any remaining senses in which evolution has not been observed, then you are attacking a strawman version of evolutionary theory.
The big idea which the mere observation of evolution cannot prove, is the idea that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. But that is a statement concerning the past, and therefore by its own nature cannot be observed directly except by forensic means. But the inability to observe the past directly is not a theoretical weakness, nor an absence of evidence.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
No. I don't know where to begin here because it's irrelevant from the outset. You would need to expand your own attempt at an argument.
> There are no transitional fossils.
Wrong; millions. That's like saying 'there are no transitional languages', when quite clearly nearly all languages are in a state of transition. Transition is what the fossil record is all about.
> The theory of evolution says that life originated,
Wrong, evolutionary theory says nothing on the origin of life. The evolution of life and the origin of life are two different things, requiring seperate explanations, seperate theories. You can say what you want on the origin of life, and it would have no bearing on evolutionary theory. A thing must exist before it can evolve.
> and evolution > proceeds, by random chance.
Wrong. It proceeds by the non-random accumulation of random variation.
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
'Only' doesn't make sense before 'theory'. 'Theory' is the most prestigeous rank an idea can have in science.
> On Nov 9, 2:57 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: > > > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool > > > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over > > > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different > > > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful > > > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not > > > science.
> > You're making a false distinction between:
> > a) A new thing > > b) A new version of an old thing
> > You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is > > the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation > > within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a > > miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' > > section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. > > 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship > > that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the > > concept leaves no room for controversy.
> > > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than > > > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
> > Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
> I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered > to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species.
Of COURSE the new species is 'morphologically similar' to its predecessor. If it wasn't, that wouldn't be evolution now, would it? That doesn't change the fact that:
a) It's a new species b) It's not morphologically the same.
> IOW > when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in > the end.
How on Earth do you manage to commit the precise fallacy which I just elucidated, so soon too? I'm literally speechless. Or wordless.
The whole point is that ' New version of an old thing ' doesn't make sense in evolution.
> Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you > have is a variation of the same species.Even should the dog become
In other words, a unique new species which is similar to the one that came before, but not exactly the same.
In other words, evolution.
> reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of > the wolf.
You mean it's similar. That's it. So what?
> Nothing has changed
Well yes, additional things have changed besides the inability to reproduce. Haven't you noticed how wolves and foxes differ?
> other then they can no longer reproduce > together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
No, never. No dog ever, ever takes 'after its kind'.
Each individual takes after its parent(s), with inaccuracies. Kinds and categories don't influence inheritance itself. How on Earth do you suppose that could even work?
That's like a photocopy magically choosing to return to being the master copy.
Where's this information to come from?
> I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such > exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a > population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take > place.
It's far from exotic, that if you make a copy of a copy of a copy, and repeat inaccuracies for millions of years, that you'll end up with something different. It's far from exotic, that if, each generation, the environment influences the odds of reproduction, that the species will gravitate naturally toward a structure which is, in effect, a reproducing machine.
In fact, it's exotic to claim otherwise.
> Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small > changes over time with an unguided process.
<ap...@email.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 2:57 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: >> > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool >> > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over >> > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different >> > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful >> > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not >> > science.
>> You're making a false distinction between:
>> a) A new thing >> b) A new version of an old thing
>> You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is >> the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation >> within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a >> miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' >> section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. >> 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship >> that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the >> concept leaves no room for controversy.
>> > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than >> > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
>> Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
>I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered >to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species.
Yes. THe new species will be similar to, but not the same as, the species it evolved from. In the same way children are similar to, but not the same as, their parents.
>IOW >when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in >the end. Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs.
Yes. That is why we get the nested hierarchy - all descendants of eukaryotes are eukaryotes. All descendants of synapsids are synapsids. All descendants of ammmals are mammals.
>In the end all you >have is a variation of the same species.
No, as you said correctly above, you get a new species that is similar to the old species and will be in the same genus.
>Even should the dog become >reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of >the wolf. Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce >together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
Both will still be canids, carnivores, mammals, synapsids, trtrapods etc. all the way beck up to eukarytes. You need to understand the nested hierarchy, and its origin, better.
On 8 Nov, 09:30, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A major reason why evolutionist arguments can sound so persuasive
is that they are correct?
> is > because they often combine assertive dogma with intimidating, > dismissive ridicule towards anyone who dares to disagree with them.
ah, I guessed wrong
<snip>
> The five propositions below are among the most troublesome to > evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have worked hard to counter them, > but with no genuine success, because they are based on empirical > scientific data and/or scientific laws.
> Evolution has never been observed.
new species have arisen within your lifetime. The fossil and genetic records show evolution to be an incontrovertable fact. By your definition of "observe" pluto doesn't orbit the sun.
> Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
no. This has been refuted so many times you should be embarassed
> There are no transitional fossils.
my cousin worked in the Natural History Museum. She tells me the place is so packed with material they don't know what to do with it. This includes transiational fossils by the ton lot (*literally*)
[I've edited the next statement to split it in two]
> The theory of evolution says that life originated [by random chance]
no, evolution has nothing to say about origins. Apart from teh fact that logically there must have been some sort of beginning. The best bet is some sort of auto-catylysing reation.
> [The theory of evolution says that ] evolution proceeds, > by random chance.
...and natural selection. Does microevolution ever proceed by what you characterise as "random chance"?
> Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
the same with Quantum Mechanics and yet that theory explains the source of the energy that powers the sun (and all the other stars), it makes atom bombs go bang, works the chips in your computer, the super conducting magnets in CERN (the problem they had last year was when the magnets stopped being super-conductors), LEDs, lasers, electron microscopes...
There's nothing as practical as a good theory
-- Nick keighley
I don't like quantum mechanics, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. --Erwin Schrödinger
On Nov 9, 9:58 am, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
> Yes. THe new species will be similar to, but not the same as, the > species it evolved from. In the same way children are similar to, but > not the same as, their parents.
The Creationist refusal to understand this concept resembles some kind of stage hypnosis.
>On Nov 9, 2:57 am, Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 8, 10:40 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 8 nov, 11:02, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote: >> > I call that simplistically believing, because a population’s gene pool >> > will display a variety of existing genetic content, therefore over >> > time these organisms must somehow also “evolve” into new and different >> > kinds of organisms by producing unequivocally new and meaningful >> > genetic content. This is wishful thinking, a leap of faith—not >> > science.
>> You're making a false distinction between:
>> a) A new thing >> b) A new version of an old thing
>> You're asking for proof of a), but in the context of evolution b) is >> the nonsense concept, and a) is all we have, in the form of variation >> within a population. The clock only has one hand. Each individual is a >> miscopy of its parent(s)' structure, and there is no 'template' >> section of the genome which remains less susceptible to mutation. >> 'Kinds' and categories are a way of describing the tree of kinship >> that arises from the mere fact of descent with modification, and the >> concept leaves no room for controversy.
>> > Well, if the ToE is looking better than the ToG, can you give me than >> > one falsifiable example of macroevolution
>> Yes. Google 'observed instances of speciation'.
>I took your advice on this. In each and every case what is considered >to be a new species is actually a morphologically similar species. IOW >when fruit flies diverge you sill have a variation of a fruit fly in >the end.
I gave you a very detailed list of fruit flies the other day Mudbrain, you didn't reply. Why was that Mudbrain?
>Same with bacteria, virus and even dogs. In the end all you >have is a variation of the same species. Even should the dog become >reproductively isolated from the wolf, the dog is still a variation of >the wolf.
Which has evolved to its present form, it has not always been a wolf.
> Nothing has changed other then they can no longer reproduce >together. The dog is still "after his own kind" the wolf.
>I hardly call these observed instances of speciation evidence for such >exotic claims like a population of fish can eventually give rise to a >population of humans if we allow enough time for small changes to take >place.
And yet we know that is exactly what happened.
>Or my favorite: sea to land and then back to the sea based on small >changes over time with an unguided process.
The fossil record show it happened.
>One has to have an over active imagination to believe this nonsense >especially in the light that all man can really observe and manipulate >for himself is micro evolution.
There is only one type of evolution.
>We can do THAT in our very own backyards with a garden or a litter of >pups.
-- Bob.
Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. Your bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 02:15:18 -0800 (PST), Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Nov 9, 9:58 am, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes. THe new species will be similar to, but not the same as, the >> species it evolved from. In the same way children are similar to, but >> not the same as, their parents.
>The Creationist refusal to understand this concept resembles some kind >of stage hypnosis.
>--Iain
Nah! Stage hypnosis can be entertaining.
-- Bob.
The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 07:25:40 -0800 (PST), Frank J
> <f...@verizon.net> wrote: > > On Nov 8, 4:30 am, evolutionguru <albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > (snip PRATTs)
> > Greetings newcomer, if you are indeed one.
> > You seem to have problems with evolution. I have heard them all > > before, but what I haven't read yet is what you think happened instead > > that lacks all these "problems."
> > So please describe your alternative, however tentative, in detail, > > *without* reference to any problems you have with evolution. Start > > will how many years ago you think the first life appeared on earth, > > and whether humans share common ancestors with other species. Note > > that an agreement with evolution on those two questions does not > > necessarily imply that you accept the Darwinian mechanism, as Michael > > Behe exemplifies.
> Seven hours and so far no reply. Perhaps "evolutionguru" has not > seen your request yet. Perhaps he (Creationism is a male-centric > delusion) is working hard gathering all his scientific evidence > for his alternative to reality, and will reply to your query some > time within the next 1,000 years.
Female creationists are certainly rare around here, if not on school boards. I miss Zoe's imaginative, if misleading, isochron threads.
So far I'm awaiting (but not expecting) replies from E-guru, All-Runny- Nose and microevolution-free Ray. Interestingly, the last 2 evolution- deniers who did answer my questions (and it always took 2 or more tries) admitted a ~4-billion year age of life and common descent. Alas, the pseudoscience code of silence is alive and well, because they refused to challenge, or be challenged by, evolution-deniers with radically different opinions.
> --http://desertphile.org > Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water > "Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz- Hide quoted text -
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 01:30:10 -0800 (PST), evolutionguru
<albie_yo...@hotmail.com> wrote: >Evolution has never been observed. >Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. >There are no transitional fossils. >The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution >proceeds, by random chance.
All of the above statements are trivially false.
>Evolution is only a theory; it hasn’t been proved.
Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence, not "proof", and the evidence for evolution, including empirical observation, is conclusive.
|
