Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 True we do not see atoms, but we observe matter, and presume through observation, what matter consists of. We test matter in real time, in the present. Matter conforms to repeatability, and therefore can be tested to conform to hypotheses. A hypothesis based on an amoeba transforming into mankind is a much greater leap than saying that matter must consist of smaller parts than we can see with the naked eye, or with instruments. It is a very simple and elemental presumption that smaller particles exist, and a great leap of faith to assert that these particles blindly formed complex living organisms. We do observe, for example, various forms of cattle co-mingling and producing fertile or infertile offspring, whether in the wild or aided by researchers. Yak, Bos, and Bison are considered separate species, but they are cross breed. Sometimes as with Yak and Bos (beef cattle), the cross is prefered for certain conditions, as in areas in Tibet and China. Other times, as with the cross between Bos and Bison, the offspring are considered weaker or inferior. But many crosses of the same kind of animal produce either infertile or highly inferior results which do not continue without human intervention. In any case we do not observe an evolution from one less sutable kind of animal into a superior form of animal, nor can this be observed in the fossil record. Since the water buffalo cannot interbreed with the above group and has a different number of chromosomes, it is not only a different species but a different kind of animal. In nature we observe variation within kind and co-mingling within kind, but development from one kind to another is not observed but rather inferred. In order for one kind such as monkey to develop into another kind such as ape an innumerable amount of conditions would have to be met. This non-observed process is what is called macroevolution. In order for macroevolution to possible, many criteria would have to be met, according to the literature by evolutionist: Mechanisms would have to be required of great complexity so that. It is presumed that each trait an animal has is the result of random mutations. We do observe mutations in animals, a handful of tens of thousands of observed mutations could even be remotely construed as beneficial to organisms. But random mutation alone does little more than to kill organisms, what more is needed is a sequence of simultaneus mutations working in concert to produce beneficial and new characteristics. A mutation that makes an eye socket without the contents, for example, would render the organism less worthy, and therefore macroevolution would not occur. Making a part of a new organ without all fully functioning traits would be useless for macroevolution to occur. But even then, any new traits or organs still do not constitute macroevolution, but those new features must then make the new species more adaptable to its environment and it must be transferred successfully to successive generations. To do this, the new trait must be multiplied in the genetic code sufficiently to assure that it will not be bread out of the species. This is just the tip of the iceberg as an innumerable amount of processes that would have to occur, but these processes are inferred to occur but have never been observed and are highly improbable given what we actually observe in living organisms. We do observe that limits to variation are designed into life. Mutations would be a very poor mechanism for beneficial, new and different organs to arise, and mutation alone would have to be followed by a great chain of mechanisms, which are also not observed to follow a process consistent with macroevolution. I have touched on just the beginnings of problems the amoeba to man hypothesis has scientifically. There are many other problems that I can continue on. To assume that macroevolution is true because educated people believe it is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum or appeal to popularity. If we were to use that argument for diet, we would conclude that the vast consensus of nutritionists must be right, we can see where that has gotten us. Another attack is that alternatives to macroevoluton are religious. I have not appealed to any religion or creed, but to observation and logic. How this relates to nutrition is that since macroevolution is highly unlikely and improbable, many imaginative scenarios regarding what our ancestors ate are used to persuade how we should eat currently. Did our ancestors eat primarily meat as depicted in fanciful characterizations of early hominids? Did we evolve hundreds of thousands of years ago this or that way? Even if some contents of a stomach were found of some ancient creature, it is fanciful conjecture to think that those elements are to be associated with a stomach that disintegrated eons ago. Evolutionists do not even agree what part lineage we came from, let alone what they ate. On the other hand, we can piece together observations outside of the spurious philosophy of macroevolution from observations from the not so distant past where remains have not found their way into undetectable dust. There are histories and modern records from observers such as Stefanson, Price, etc. Therefore, I assert that the pre-history is highly irrelevant compared to historical observation and observable experimentation. Religion is not my issue here. So I suggest we not get into that straw man fallacy. -- www.goatrevolution.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 > > > > > >> > >> > >>> > >I suggest that if this forum is to have any semblance of >> >credibility on any level, that people who advocate 'intelligent >> >design' as a coherent explanation of how human beings have come to >> >exist, realize that educated people view them as religious wackos. > > ³Hmm...What makes you so convinced of the absence of purpose and > design that you consider the topic completely unworthy of > discussion? You must have great faith in evolution to believe it has > the capacity to comprehensively answer such questions. The nearly > universal belief in a higher power throughout history ought to at > least afford the right of educated people to suggest the possibility > of design in the process without being condemned as religious > wackos. If such a higher power does exist, it most certainly > couldn't be extricated from our understanding of science. > > Interesting that our propensity to wonder about these matters at all > serves no direct survival purpose and yet here we are... ³ > > the latter statement is absurd. My ability to visualize a 100 foot hamster > directly serves no survival purpose, and yet here I am! You ask me to prove, > or construct an argument that there is not a personal god, essentially. Sorry > but that¹s not something that I want to spend my day doing religious > fanatics aren¹t going to be convinced by any kind of a rational argument > anyway. I do, absolutely, think that inserting religion as a worthy adversary > in a scientific argument is, primarily, the jurisdiction of religious wackos, > and I think that they are rightfully mocked and scorned. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 >> I guess what I'm getting at is if they weren't so married to the >> notion that humans are literally descendant from chimps-which seems >> yet to be a pretty big assumption- I would think a possible >> conclusion from this type of discovery might be that although living >> creatures share some genetic information that it doesn't necessarily >> follow they are descended from one another. I'm just curious, for those of you who think that evolutionary theory is not correct, what do you make of the transitional species between ape and man? I mean specifically the fossilized remains of some of these creatures, sich as cro-magnan and homo erectus? What about the famous skeletal remains of " Lucy " (Australopithecus afarensis) and the other Australopithecus afarensis specimens who had some skeletal characteristics consistent with humans and others consistent with apes? How are these remains explained by the anti-evolution camp? And is there an anti-evolution rebuttal for these remains in the context of man and ape also sharing more than 99% of the same genes? I'm not arguing in favor of evolutionary theory or against it, I'm just puzzled about how these fossils are explained in a non-evolutionary paradigm? Suze Fisher Web Design and Development http://www.allurecreative.com Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 At 09:10 AM 9/2/06 -0700, Gene wrote: >My ability to visualize a 100 foot hamster directly serves no survival purpose, and yet here I am! If you crossed that 100 foot hamster with the many-armed sugar god, what would evolve? MFJ " The great secret that all old people share is that you really haven't changed in seventy or eighty years. Your body changes, but you don't change at all. And that, of course, causes great confusion. " ~ Doris Lessing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 Thanks, Suze for your input. There are processes by which paleontologists find and categorize human and hominid remains. When we examine their finds from top to bottom from the fossil record we find that Homo sapiens (and Homo sapiens-like), Neandertals, Homo erectus, and Homo ergaster are not represented as we would expect from the typical college anthropology text books. When we cart out the various finds of these different groups by ages prescribed to them by paleontologists we find that all of these types are essentially contemporaneous. It has not been an easy task to find and identify the array of hominid fossils, but upon extensive scrutiny, we find that, according to the evolutionary timescale, Homo sapiens fossils are dated as old as 3.75 million years (lower Pleistocene to Pliocene), Neanderthals and pre-Neanderthals from 17.6 to 800 thousand years (upper Pleistocene to Middle Pleistocene), Homo erectus and Homo egraster from 6 thousand to 1.9 million years (Holocene; upper, middle, lower Pleistocene; Pliocene). Homo habilis is essentially contemporaneous to Homo erectus. The record shows that these various forms of life co-existed not evolved one into another. Homo sapiens, which we are, are amongst the oldest hominids found. There is not evidence that we came from anything else. There is often much disagreement among evolutionists as to the dates of these many hominid fossils, but by finding, identifying, and dating hominid fossils, there is not clear indication that presumed ancestors of humans developed into humans and then died off due to their insufficiency to adapt. According to macroevolutionary assumptions, environmental pressure is applied to a species, the species then has to adapt because of insufficiency, and then a more sufficient species develops while the lesser species must be cut off or eventually extinguished so as not to continue to interbreed with the superior species. If the presumed ancestor continues to thrive and survive as a contemporary of its presumed offspring, then there is not evidence that one was derived from the other. It is only conjecture and this conjecture is inconsistent with paleontologists' own fossil findings and their interpretations of the specific findings and dating of the individual fossils. One macroevolutionary model has the sequence of Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy) transforming into Homo habilis into Homo erectus into Homo sapiens. Lucy was a most complete find of her type and was presumed by her discoverers to be 3 million years old. It should be noted here that fossils are typically preserved in sedimentary rock which cannot be dated by radiometric methods other than carbon dating and carbon dating is not used for fossils older than about 6000 years, therefore fossils presumed to be older than 6000 years are dated by conjecture, there is no solid evidence. And the conjecture used is rife with circular reasoning: rocks are dated by presuming the ages of the fossils and fossils are dated presuming the date of the rocks. Radiometric dating other than carbon dating is used for igneous rocks, not sedimentary rocks where fossils found. Unlike repeatable tests done in a laboratory or in a currently observable pool of organisms, when a paleontologist finds some fossilized bones, he has no concrete way of testing their age or lineage or what it gave birth to over presumed eons of time, it is all fanciful and imaginative. And the web of fossil findings do not demonstrate what came from what, especially when the evolutionary literature shows these different " species " co-existed in the same periods. We could better say that they lived together and we do not have any evidence of transitional forms. " Transitional " infers gradual change from one form into another. It ain't there. It is fallaciously assumed. These kinds of macroevolutionary fallacies are often also read into nutrition. We cannot see what these fossils ate. except on very rare occasion are stomach contents revealed. Often tooth structure is used to indicate what a fossilized species might have been eating. Now that would hardly help a nutritionist of today to properly infer what our ancestors ate in the past. Maybe Twinkies? Even now we are discovering how ruminants can eat and thrive on a variety of foods that we have not found in their stomachs in the fossil record, so that identifying specifics of one's diet by tooth or bone structure can be very uncertain. Now in more recent times, we find in human habitations, various cooking implements or bones or vegetative remains, and we can get better ideas of human dietaries in particular areas. Then upon examining their bone strength or incidences of cavities we might better form ideas about human diets. -- www.goatrevolution.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2006 Report Share Posted September 2, 2006 >I'm just curious, for those of you who think that evolutionary theory is not >correct, what do you make of the transitional species between ape and man? I >mean specifically the fossilized remains of some of these creatures, sich as >cro-magnan and homo erectus? What about the famous skeletal remains of > " Lucy " (Australopithecus afarensis) and the other Australopithecus afarensis >specimens who had some skeletal characteristics consistent with humans and >others consistent with apes? Lucy is interesting and most of what you see about Lucy in textbooks or museums simply isn't true. For instance the Australopithecene had distinctly ape-like feet. Supposed life like renderings of Lucy found in some museums show Lucy with human-like feet. Lucy had a protruding jaw like a chimp. The museum renderings and textbook drawings often show Lucy with a flat human-like face. Lucy had a ape's rib cage. Also Lucy's pelvis was horizontal, not vertical. Thus Lucy was a quadruped, not bipedal. She was a knuckle dragging ape, not an upright human ancestor. Many paleontologists (including evolutionists) who have examined her and other Australopithecenes have come to the conclusion that Lucy is nothing more than a chimp or an extinct species of ape similar to a chimp. No missing link there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 > Since we are on the topic of the middle ages, I suggest that last > century was worse than the middle ages for those under atheistic > Marxism. The well documented Black Book of Communism researched by > French Journalists who had access into Communist archives after the > fall of the Berlin wall estimate that more than 120 million perished > in gulags and mass exterminations, and planned famines under the hands > of atheist Communists--Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. This pales > in comparison to wars perpetrated by Buddhist, Muslims and Christians > in the middle ages. And yes, it is seldom recognized that Buddhists > fought wars with one another. Hi , Thank you for clarifying that you've had religion on your mind this whole time, and not biology. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 On 9/5/06, downwardog7 <illneverbecool@...> wrote: > > ... why can't some sort of evolution be the > > mechanism of creation? Is it that we'd then be sullied somehow by > > monkey blood? > > > , > You, you...monkey apologist! > > I know who you are and what you're trying to do, speaking your > half-truths with lips redolent of palm sugar... We are the same, you and I. Sweet monkey blood courses through your veins; give in, give in. Don't fight who you are. (Sugar monkey says who cares who made the earth, eat more sugar) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 On 9/4/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote: > Slits that are not gills are not gill slits, especially when the slits > develop into organs that gilled animals do not have. To say that they > are gill slits in light of this information shows a logical fallacy of > begging the question. The mammalian slits in the neck are only " gill > slits " since they are assumed to have been derived from gilled > animals. There is not evidence of this connection from observation. > As far the presumed tail of the human embryo is concerned, this > structure is the base of the spine that, as the human grows, becomes > surrounded by the rest of the tissue that becomes our bum. It is no > more a tail than is the human coccyx. A true tail is made of bony > parts beyond the coccyx. Rather than be torn into innumerable tangents, let me re-emphasize the point I was trying to make with these examples: you cannot conflate having an immature form of a structure in one stage of development with having the mature form of that structure in a different stage of development, such as reproductive maturity. > Again, by the processes observed in real time, molecular biologists > are not observing a mountain of evidence that new genetic material is > being introduced which leads to the advancement and survivability of > any species in nature. Recombination is ubiquitous. Very often > recombination of genes is referred to as mutation, but that is not the > kind of mutation that is would be needed to produce macroevolution, as > mentioned in an earlier note. This is because of your circular reasoning in which you have defined macroevolution as something that uses forms of mutations that are not observed. You have so far remained entirely obstinate in presenting any coherent case for why recombination or any other mechanism of mutation is limited to a strict category of phenotypic change that you have arbitrarily designated " microevolution " for the purposes of supporting your own argument, a definition for which you have presented no coherent basis in science. You have likewise refused to either acknowedge or refute the many forms of mutation observed in addition to recombination; you have yet further refused to acknowledge that site-specific recombination is observed to contribute to mutation by swaping introns and exons between paternal and maternal forms of a gene; instead, you have chosen to make a giant conflation of all forms of recombination and thus insisted that because, by implication, meotic recombination does not inherently lead to mutation, that thus " recombination " is not a form of mutation. > There are other " mutations " that can > cause alterations in genes such as radiation, mutagenic chemicals, > etc., but these mechanism could theoretically produce new genetic > material but are harmful to the organism in almost every case, and are > not observed to produce new organs or complex characteristics as would > be required for macroevolution to occur. There are yet other mutations that you ignore by choice, including but not limited to E. coli's " SOS response " in which it uses a secondary set of DNA replication enzymes that are error-prone in order to deliberately induce abnormal genetic variation, thus increasing the chance that some of the offspring will present a phenotype surviving the stress, after which it returns to using its low-error system, demonstrating, in essence, the possibility that some mutations can be helpful even when they are random. E. coli has also been shown to have a non-random form of mutation machinery. When its lactase gene is spliced out, it will, when placed in an environment that has a limited supply of other foods, once it is left with lactose only, some in the colony will mutate not only another gene to become a lactase gene, but even mutate a second gene to act as a lactose-sensitive promoter to regulate this lactase gene. Then, the E. coli have a method for cooperatively swapping these genes through the colony. Some mutations, then, are not random. In any case, you have not presented any coherent explanation for why mutations would be limited to harmful changes. In order to assert this, you should back it up with something logical. > The proofs for macroevoltion > are in the minds of evolutionists, not in nature. Limits to variation > are in the genome. Explain what they are. > Here we can see how evolutionary desires to force feed presumptions > into what is observed with living organisms may prevent scientists > from understanding where physical degeneration comes from. Many > scientists are fixated on mutations causing traits. Thus, often fail > to see other environmental forces at play. This is a result of primarily of myopy; secondarily, it rests more on genetic science, not evolutionary theory. The two are obviously interrelated, but if all scientists began viewing genetic variance as " defects " rather than random changes induced by a value-free environment, nothing would change in this respect. > Price understood how > parents eating refined foods caused children in a family to show signs > of degeneration. Evolutionists still have difficulty discerning > between degeneration caused by nutritional deficiency and degeneration > caused by presumed genetic degeneration. HOW MUCH MORE should we doubt > their interpretations of genetic dynamics relating to eons of time in > the past, for which there is no way of observing! You are aware, are you not, the Price was an " evolutionist " ? Review his comments on why the Australian Aborigines have such good eyesight. > Doctors, for > example, very often blame a patient's disease on his genes rather on > his behavior or diet. This is especially silly when doctors do not > test for genetic aberrations. Evolutionary interpretations have > significantly muddied the waters of dietary truth for which there is > abundant observation based on living organisms as by researchers such > as Price. Evolutionists such as Price. > There is not a mountain of evidence for macroevolution from the work > of evolutionary biologists, but rather a mountain of paperwork > attempting to fill the vast gaps in the evolutionary model. Natural > science knows nothing of macroevolution. For many people, visualizing > a vast array of books and reports is enough to bridge the gap between > what is actually observed and the humanistic faith they so desperately > rely on. I'm not sure how best to define " humanism, " but the driving force in the historical acceptance for evolution was observation and occurred within the context of a very religious society. I think it's *possible* that evolutionary theory led, to some extent, to a fall in the prominence of religion, along with many other factors, but faith in man over God is not what causes belief in evolution. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 On 9/5/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote: > Since we are on the topic of the middle ages, I suggest that last > century was worse than the middle ages for those under atheistic > Marxism. The well documented Black Book of Communism researched by > French Journalists who had access into Communist archives after the > fall of the Berlin wall estimate that more than 120 million perished > in gulags and mass exterminations, and planned famines under the hands > of atheist Communists--Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. This pales > in comparison to wars perpetrated by Buddhist, Muslims and Christians > in the middle ages. And yes, it is seldom recognized that Buddhists > fought wars with one another. Yeah, well I hear evolutionists eat babies. Being atheist communist social darwinists they just don't know any better. (lock up yer kids, here come the monkey men) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 On 9/5/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote: > Yeah, well I hear evolutionists eat babies. Being atheist communist > social darwinists they just don't know any better. That's because evolutionists came from monkeys. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 You should know that evolutionist routinely reference religion, it is called anthropology. I reference religion as part of history and human studies. You should review your evolutionary anthropology text books. Notice that this post is had no reference to argument for or against evolution, but is a response to a different topic. It is OK for evolutionists to reference religion as history but not for others it seems. I continue not to use religion as defence for or against evolution. Evolution is supported fanatically by humanist religion so that it is difficult to tell where humanism begins or ends in typical introductory anthropology text books. I reference religion, but do not support religion. I am espousing no religion, creed, church, mosque, temple, or political candidate. Also, if people want a separation between religion and state (which I agree with), they should de-fund the religious humanist public schools. Stop forcing the tax payers to pay for religion. I am not for religion, and I am consistent about that. Much more than the typical evolutionist. On 9/5/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > > Since we are on the topic of the middle ages, I suggest that last > > century was worse than the middle ages for those under atheistic > > Marxism. The well documented Black Book of Communism researched by > > French Journalists who had access into Communist archives after the > > fall of the Berlin wall estimate that more than 120 million perished > > in gulags and mass exterminations, and planned famines under the hands > > of atheist Communists--Russian, Chinese, Cambodian, etc. This pales > > in comparison to wars perpetrated by Buddhist, Muslims and Christians > > in the middle ages. And yes, it is seldom recognized that Buddhists > > fought wars with one another. > > Hi , > > Thank you for clarifying that you've had religion on your mind this > whole time, and not biology. > > Chris > -- > The Truth About Cholesterol > Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: > http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com > > -- www.goatrevolution.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2006 Report Share Posted September 5, 2006 On 9/5/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote: > You should know that evolutionist routinely reference religion, it is > called anthropology. I reference religion as part of history and > human studies. You should review your evolutionary anthropology text > books. Notice that this post is had no reference to argument for or > against evolution, but is a response to a different topic. It is OK > for evolutionists to reference religion as history but not for others > it seems. I continue not to use religion as defence for or against > evolution. Evolution is supported fanatically by humanist religion so > that it is difficult to tell where humanism begins or ends in typical > introductory anthropology text books. I reference religion, but do > not support religion. I am espousing no religion, creed, church, > mosque, temple, or political candidate. Also, if people want a > separation between religion and state (which I agree with), they > should de-fund the religious humanist public schools. Stop forcing > the tax payers to pay for religion. I am not for religion, and I am > consistent about that. Much more than the typical evolutionist. Allright, I will take your word for it but these discussions would be easier if you would be straightforward about what you actually think is going on in biological science. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 > >> > > >>> > > > >>> > > I agree with most of what you're saying here. The answer always > > lies > >>> > > somewhere in the middle path. Maybe a balance can be found in > >>> > > finding a neutral way of countering the atheistic conclusions > >>> > > inappropriately drawn from science (this is another debate, but > >>> > > making schools or anywhere else for that matter " religiously > >>> > > neutral " is difficult if not impossible- someone's system of > > beliefs > >>> > > will always predominate). It seems reasonable to me that a > > better > >>> > > balance might be struck by intentionally teaching the inability > > of > >>> > > any one discipline or theory to fully explain something as > > complex > >>> > > as life and the universe, and also teaching a general > > appreciation > >>> > > for that complexity. > >>> > > > >> > > >> > I'm not sure where this bit about 'atheistic conclusions drawn > > from science' comes in. > > > > ---------I've heard people say " I don't believe in God- I'm an evolutionist > > ---------or I believe in science. " I don't think this is uncommon. > > > > Right but this doesn¹t mean that their atheism is a conclusion of their > > belief in Evolution. > > > >> >Certainly, if there is some greater power in the universe, it could > > design the rules of nature so that life could form out of inorganic > > matter. Indeed - if there were such a greater power that was > > omnipotent like the god you like to foce on others, why couldn't HE > > create such a science, given that HE has created natural laws that > > take care of so much else. Was it kind of like, he just couldn't > >> >solve that one last thing? > >> > > >> > It's certainly fine to address issues in any scientific course of > > study about what is not explained by current science. It's certainly > > fine to explain that the complexity of nature might be elusive given > > limitations of our measurement capabilities, and our minds. However, > > what is not OK and is part of your AGENDA is to bring god into the > > mix. Obviously there is no such thing as total objectivity in life, > > and certainly points of view are going to appear in public schools. > > There's no way to avoid that. but you can leave GOD out of it, and > > you can leave Christianity out of it. And it is offensive that you > > want to bring it in. > >> > > > -----The educational suggestions I offered were decidedly not religious. > > -----Whatever " AGENDA " you claim is completely unfounded, and, > > -----incidentally, a great example of the overblown fear of religion I > > -----mentioned. But for the record, that the mention of a generic higher > > -----power in the context of a classroom discussion infringes on some > > -----atheist kid's rights is ridiculous. > > > > I have no fear of religion. I studied a bunch of religious philosophy in > > college. I do have a fear of simple minded people inserting religion in a > > science curriculum. Certainly there can be mention of a Œgeneric¹ higher power > > in the context of a classroom discussion. One couldn¹t discuss the history of > > the world without it. But it has no place in a science discussion. ID is not a > > theory in any sense of the word, and any attempt to insert it in a science > > curriculum IS a religious agenda. First of all, I've never argued for indiscriminate adoption of ID into science class. I've been asking questions, learning more about it and getting a better appreciation for both sides of the debate from this discussion. I liked Chris's example of the theory of irreducible complexity being worthy of discussion in spite of his disagreement with it. It would be wrong to exclude it solely because it comes from a Christian or someone labeled as being part of the ID camp. It IS a religious belief, and a desire to > > keep a separation of church and state is most decidedly NOT a fear of > > religion. There is most certainly room for interpretation in the separation of church and state doctrine. The original spirit of this doctrine was in keeping the government from interfering in the religious freedom of the people, not vice-versa. Your interpretation seems to support eliminating any mention, reference or representation of religion in the government and public square and it's just plain misguided extremism. While your version of it may include a Œgeneric¹ god, this agenda is > > peculiar to right wing Christians, and I have an absolute abhorrence for what > > they are trying to do in this country. I fear THEM, and their IGNORANCE, not > > religion itself. I can't own your doubt of my sincerity or your desire to box my motives into some right wing Christian stereotype you hold. I am not part of a diabolical plan to inch by inch force Christianity on the people of our country. It is clear to me now that it is this intolerance, fear and hatred of a group of people you've articulated that is driving your heart and mind rather than an interest in truth and individual freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 On 9/6/06, yoginidd <WAPFbaby@...> wrote: > You suggested something about inorganic molecules, which I will > address fully later. It is worth noting that according to the Bible, man was made from inorganic material. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 , > 1.. Change in the genetic composition of a population during >successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the >genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of >new species. I'm not sure why you posted that very long list of largely irrelevant definitions, but as you can see from the above definition, it is populations, not species, that evolve. That is why it explicitly notes the development of a new species, but says nothing about the cessation of the original species. > Gene, in answer to your question as to whether or not I think that >discounts evolution, absolutely not. However, I too search for the truth in >everything. One thing that I find interesting is that Darwin was a " self >taught " geologist. And I am probably far less an expert in evolution as >you are, but isn't geology the study of rocks and of the earth's crust and >such? The theory of evoultion in its current state does not rest on Darwin's findings (though they are still illustrative and supportive), and no theory in any science whatsoever depends on the background of its advocates and certainly not of a mere one of its advocates. > Darwin was a confessed Agnostic, he wasn't sure either way >whether God existed or not. What does his faith have to do with yours, mine, or anyone else's? > One of the arguments for Darwin was that >he " had to be sure of his theory, otherwise why would he have suffered >the persecution of the religious world? " I have never heard anyone argue for Darwin; I'm not even sure what it would mean to " argue for Darwin. " Likewise I would immediately dismiss anyone who argued for *evolution* on the basis of Darwin's willingness to endure any type of persecution, and if that was the only argument for evolution I would certainly dismiss the theory off the bat. Likewise, even if a good many of its proponents suggested that such an argument was evidence for evolution, I would be highly skeptical of the theory on the basis that most of its advocates were obvious kooks. Since that is not the case, I believe evolution takes place based on the massive scientific evidence and the absolute self-evidence of evolution that stares back at you when you look at how the inside of a cell is ordered. > And in using that question, I >have to say why would men for over the last 2000 years give their lives for >something they believed in, if they too weren't sure? This likewise does not prove that the faith they died for was true. Nevertheless, there is nothing mutually exclusive about evolution and Christianity, which is why millions of Christians believe in evolution. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 On 9/6/06, Brown <brobab@...> wrote: > The > foundation of the evolutionary model is the geologic column, This statement is absolutely absurd. Given the limitations of each area of science, we would expect the absolute worst evidence for evolution to come from paleontology. Unsurprisingly, paleontology is not the leading line of evidence used by evolutionists to argue for evolution. Again, unsurprisingly, your argument rests well over 90 percent on paleontology. >but it an > elaborate and massive construct. I remain agnostic towards your interpretation of the paleontological evidence because I don't know enough about it. You clearly know much more about paleontology than you know about molecular biology, so I don't take your thorough misrepresentation of the latter to necessarily reflect on your representation of the former, but it gives me pause before attributing any credibility to your paleontological assessment. > Neither the fossil record nor real > time obsevation and experimentation supports the elaborate construct. > It is easy to see how evolutionary scientists have faith that the > variations obseved in nature are manifistations of evolution displayed > in classic text books, but the geologic column is a construct rife > with massive omissions, massive reversals, circular and unvarifiable > dating, the " universal principle of evolution " evaporates like a puff > of mist. If the dating is as unreliable as you claim, then there is no evidence *against* evolution from these datings either. Since paleontology is not the primary argument for evolution and never has been, this does not give any reasonable person rational license to ignore the piles and piles of evidence accumulated from other fields. I have repeatedly refuted numerous assertions of yours about what we observe in real time, and you repeatedly have ignored them. As an example, you stated unequivocally that when different species interbreed, their offspring are sterile or reduced in either viability or fitness. I gave you two examples directly refuting that -- the hybrids between Townsend warblers and hermit warblers, and the hybrids between tiger salamanders and axolotl salamanders. The first you ignored with no mention. The second you engaged after I repeated it three times, repeatedly noting your failure to engage it, but in doing so, you argued that it was not an example of a mechanism of macroevolution, but never admitted to the obvious fact that it was a direct refutation about the viability of hybrid species. As a second example, you have repeatedly stated that " no new genetic material " arises except adverse changes due to radiation or other types of cellular damage, and that these " random, " as you erroneously call them, changes are incapable of generating " new genetic material. " I have listed numerous other mechanisms by which new genetic material is incorporated into the genome, and you have flat-out ignored all of them. Your idea that macroevolution requires " new genetic material must be introduced into offspring that was not in the ancestor, not merely recombination of genes, but entirely new genetic material, " reaches the height of absurdity. The very basis of the entire theme of evolution is that forms of life do not appear suddenly ex nihilo, but evolve from pre-existing forms of life. This applies to organisms right down to genes. If you look at proteins, what you see is the same types of homology and analogy that you see in macroscopic anatomical structures, and it is *abundantly* evident that genes and proteins are largely made by reconstructing the same parts of other genes and proteins. There are large superfamilies of proteins that involve the same basic protein unit, and thus the same basic genetic unit, simply repeated over and over again, arranged in different numbers per molecule or hinged together at different orientations, certain small parts of which may have degrees of variability where only several amino acids vary between the proteins yet these amino acids dramatically change their binding affinity. Now, you would expect, then, that the *primary* mechanism of evolutionary change would not be the " random " point mutations induced by radiation that the body tries to prevent and fix as much as possible -- although these are clearly a source of genetic variation -- but you would instead expect it to occur through a mechanism of domain shuffling. That is, taking large sections that code for self-stable functional units of proteins, and mixing them together in different ways. Sure enough, site-specific recombination does exactly that, and is directly observed. As a DNA-repair mechanism, double strand breaks are often repaired by taking the allele from the homologous but *other* chromosome with the *other* allele, and using this allele to copy the part that is missing from the first. Rarely are whole genes copied this way. Often, only parts of genes are copied this way. Thus, a *new* *different* gene is born. Not from randomly mutating things in ways that might not have any functional utility, but by taking one *part* of something that already has established functional utiltiy, and combining it with something else that has established functional utility. Although this process is most well-described and well-characterized in fungi, if you do a search for " HLA gene conversion " on PubMed you will see numerous reports of previously unidentified HLA genes in certain populations like island populations that appear to have been created through this process, and at the very least plausibly attributed to this process based on the fact that these *new* and *different* and *completely functional* genes are clearly a rearrangement of functional units taken from different genes and combined. Nevertheless, you argue that 1) there is no mechanism for genetic transfer except random damage induced by radiation and 2) the simple lack of clarity and inconclusiveness of the fossil record refutes all other evidence for evolution, even though you yourself explicitly state that it is inconclusive and therefore can *not* be evidence against evolution. Isn't it interesting that I say something new each time and you repeat yourself, regardless of what I say? Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2006 Report Share Posted September 6, 2006 On 9/6/06, Jane Rowland <classicalwriter@...> wrote: > Nor is it rational. For any creature to, by random means, in one >generation alter forever its ability to mate with its former species to now >form a new one, and to happen to be in the vicinity of the opposite gender >simultaneously encountering the mindnumbingly improbable same >transmutation begs the most politically-hardened darwinist to raise a >bushy prominent eyebrow. This theory of evolution, if it existed, would be thoroughly irrational. Since it does not, it has little bearing on the actual theory of evolution believed by scientists. > There is simply no need to drop out of this debate, you all, because it >purportedly requires " scientific degrees. " It does not. You are correct. Neither understanding nor contributing to science requires a science degree. It does, however, require a basic familiarity with the science. If you would like to acquire this familiarity so that you can begin both understanding and contributing to science, an introductory, college-level biology textbook *designed for biology majors* is an excellent place to start. It is expensive, but it is well worth it for the fascinating and beautiful pictures. > Any ape can wonder about the dogmatic and hysterical demands of no >debate made by evolutionists, apply common sense to the wobbly >claims and reach a healthy amount of doubt. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but my understanding is that despit our best attempt to communicate with chimpanzees, they don't think about much else besides food. > Never let any of the politically-correct demands that you " leave God out >of the equation " force you to fold your hand. It is a red herring. Like all >the Galileo and madness of the Middle Ages and separation of church- >state issues. All meant to detract from the real argument which >is " where's the beef? " The real argument is how life came to be according to material mechanisms. Since Christianity considers the world to be created by God, matter to be fundamentally good as such a creation of God, and God to act via the material world, embodied by his providing salvation by becoming man in the person of Jesus Christ, it should not conflict with Christianity that there is a material explanation for how life came into being. I do not wish to get into a debate about the particulars of whether evolution is consistent with certain precise theological points, but I just would like to point out that the explanation of a material mechanism to something should not indicate for a Christian that God is being excluded. And actually prior to the evolution, spontaneous generation was the predominant belief. So one could easily be an atheist and believe in spontaneous generation as an alternative to divine creation. The introduction of evolution has little to do with the question of God one way or the other. Most Christians and people of many other religious faiths believe that God continuously works in their lives. They do not, however, deny the basic physics of the world -- after all, if God created physical laws, then they are good. In any case, a Christian might lose a family member to a car accident, and interpret the event as being within God's will. Yet, they would not conclude from this that the fundamental physics that caused the car accident were somehow inoperative. > Remember all, the sun is not necessarily the center of anything and >Pluto is just a rock after all. The sun is, last I knew, the center of our solar system. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.