The Kansas Board of Education has recently decided that evolution will not be required to be taught in high school science classes and actually forbids the mentioning of the word Evolution by instructors. This was in conjunction with a recent poll of Americans that showed less than 44% believed the Theory of Evolution to be credible.
"I don't like the idea of my ancestors being monkeys. So yes I like Creationism" - high school student interviewed on NBC News tonight
"I don't like the idea of the world changing for the worse. So yes I like the idea that Y2K will be insignificant" - typical pollyanna
Why can't people "Get It" about Y2K? Most cannot even accept the scientific evidence that DNA is a programmed mechanism to populate life on Earth, so naturally they also have a hard time believing that the systemic nature of y2k could cause an economic collapse. No wonder denial is so high.
-- Charles D. (survival@fittest.), August 25, 1999
Answers
DNA is a message written by the hand of God.
-- Revelation (repent@church.now), August 25, 1999.
Sad ain't it ? but the whole point of the middle eastern
monotheistic cults is Control, and dumber is better.
-- Dan G (earth_changes@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.
I'm a Calvinist. I believe in predestination and I see it at work. It is apparent that a deluding spirit has taken over many people, for they are unable to see the perilous situation America, and the rest of the world is in at this moment. When we disregard His law Word as Americans have, He sends a "judicial blindness" before His judgement. Many difficulties are heading our way, not only Y2K. However, the Lord warns the remnant. It manifests itself as an inner wittness that cannot be ignored. To paraphrase Rev,. David Wilkerson from his latest book titled How God will preserve his people in the coming Depression, " The Lord will smite America because we have become willing servants of satan, and He will purge the church of hypocrisy." This is my only explantion for all the DGI's. Fear God, not Y2K. Fear God, not man.
-- potent (potent308@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.
From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr near Monterey, California
I totally agree with this analysis. However, ironically, there's a
high proportion of creationists among GIs.
-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage.neener.autospammers--regrets.greenspun), August 25, 1999.
Creationism is for the braindead brainwashed sheeple.
What better way to control you guy's.
Chrrrrr phooo chrrrrr phooo sleep, sleeep, sleeeeeeep
let the makers and givers of LABELS lead you into your doom.
Religion serves the rich few to control the brainwashed masses.
-- me (Bad_for@you.sheeple), August 25, 1999.
44% of the American public reject what they were spoon fed in public
schools? They show signs of independent thought and you think
this makes them less likely to GI?
I don't agree..
-- Deborah (infowars@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.
Charles -
You have mischaracterized the Kansas decision:
...The new standards delete references to so-called macroevolution
the process of change from one species to another but include
references to microevolution, or changes within species. They also
mention natural selection, the idea that advantageous traits increase
in a population over time...
In other words, they line up with many in the scientific community who
question positing evolution as an originating, rather than a
modifying, process.
And by the bye: you describe DNA as "programmed", which would indicate
the influence of some form of intelligence in creating the "program".
Egad, sir, you're not one of those wacky Deists, are you? 8-}]
-- Mac (sneak@lurk.hid), August 25, 1999.
Do a search on Zecharia Sitchin, Alan Alford, Lloyd Pye, David Icke.
Then come back to me after reading their research and tell me
humanity evolved from monkeys/apes.
It simply didn't happen that way - the latest scientific evidence
points to a sudden abrupt new dna string (i.e. us) occurring in
Africa about 350,000 years ago.
Check it out - work out the implications for yourself.
I won't even bother with the Adam and Eve claptrap.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
44% of the American public reject what they were spoon fed in
public schools? They show signs of independent thought and you think
this makes them less likely to GI?
I don't agree..
-- Deborah
Right on, Deb!
-- Sandmann (Sandmann@alasbab.com), August 25, 1999.
If we're brainwashed, we won't know we are. If we don't know, we will
fervently believe that we are right and think independantly.
So how can we -really- think independantly?
By rejecting any association to any religion, cult or government party
or any LABELS.
-- (think@utside.box), August 25, 1999.
Mac: I believe in a supreme intelligence. I believe that DNA is the
method by which this supreme intelligence generated life on this
planet. I believe it was programmed from the start by, as Einstein
said, "the Old One."
I also believe in Jesus the man and Jesus the myth, but not Jesus the
God. It makes no difference if Jesus was man or God; his teachings
about the nature of goodness are what counts.
When Christians insist that Jesus is God and that everything in the
Bible has to be taken literally, they are depriving themselves of the
real beauty and power of the myth, namely, that it transcends
reality.
-- Charles D. (@ .), August 25, 1999.
It may not be Charles meant to start a thread that is, ultimately,
divisive... but we must endeavor to avoid falling into such traps
(intentional and unintentional). We come to this forum not to find
fault with each other, but face a common problem that threatens our
life and property, those we love, our way of life, and our highest
hopes.
Keep on keeping on!
Sincerely,
Stan Faryna
-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), August 25, 1999.
44% of the American public reject what they were spoon fed in
public schools? They show signs of
independent thought and you think this makes them less likely to
GI? I don't agree.. -- Deborah
Right on, Deb!
Charles, you've got a healthy attitude about all this.
Al
-- Sandmann
Yeah, right, Deb, Sandman; we should also reject that the Earth goes
around the sun, because that's what we've been taught in public
schools, too.
Mac:
Egad, sir, you're not one of those wacky Deists, are you? 8-}]
I resemble that remark, Mac, but my mother likes me.
Andy says,
Then come back to me after reading their research and tell me humanity
evolved from monkeys/apes.
It simply didn't happen that way
Righto, Andyboy! We didn't evolve from MONKEYS! Look around at the sty
we call our planet. It's intuitively obvious that we evolved from
PIGS!
It's just a coincidence that we have so many similarities in our
physiology with those damned monkeys. A coincidence.
-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 25, 1999.
Maybe you evolved from a primate Al but I certainly didn't. Do
yoursel a favour and research the subject before embarrassing
yourself (again) publicly.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
I can wait to read the posting come next Febuary. This Y2K thing is not going to be a doomer thing! I've have and been prepared for a disaster from any form, for years. I L.O.L. at how you doomers glee over even the remote possibility of a disaster by computors. How come you are not sitting on a lounge chair in the Bahamas, facing the coming hurricanes and preaching doom? I'll be in my lounge chair on 01/01/00, watching T.V. drinking a cold one and L.O.L. at all this pethetic hype you doomers are dwelling on. Boy are you going to feel like a dunce, LLL..OOO...LLL.....!!!!!!!!!!
-- I.B.Neanderthall (credancecreaton@nono.com), August 25, 1999.
Evolution works, not only in biology but in AI, protein modeling,
rational drug design, etc. It's a powerful idea that will propel lots
of new technology into the far future.
As far as I'm concerned, so-called "creationism" and evolution don't
mix in a scientific sense. Evolution as a mechanism has been supported
by mounds and mounds of empirical evidence, simple observations with
strong predictive value. But you can't "prove" something Supernatural
using only the tools of the Natural. Neither can you disprove it. A
respectable scientist can say that he believes that God created the
earth through evolultion, but that this statement is a matter of faith
and not of hard science.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 25, 1999.
Yes Neanderthall, you'll likely be watching a TV, but too
congenitally comatose to realise that there is nothing being
broadcast on your home shopping channel, also your cold one will have
to be put back in your pants before it gets frostbite.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
http://www2.eridu.co.uk/eridu/gods.html
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
coprolith, creationist and science don't mix, period. One lives in
fantasy, the other in reality.
-- (think@utside.box), August 25, 1999.
But you can't "prove"
something Supernatural using only the tools of the Natural.
Neither can you disprove it. A
respectable scientist can say that he believes that God created
the earth through evolultion,
but that this statement is a matter of faith and not of hard
science.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 25, 1999.
Coprolith
I would beg to differ, if one looks at general systems analysis,
quantum physics, chaos, one can see the possibility that all things
evolve from light.
And let there be light. Of course proof is another matter.
Although the point that Charles D. is making is scary. Subjective over
the objective. Each has their place. Even in Y2K.
I have been of the opinion if you want to find the secrets of the
universe, look at DNA.
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 25, 1999.
This article originally appeared in the Christian Standard, October
17, 1982.
Darwin in Fantasyland
Roger Chambers
Do you know whats doing in the world of Darwin, dinosaurs, and DNA?
I dont mean textbook stuff.
Evolution, of course, has long existed in two general theories: (1)
The well-groomed scenario in
schoolbooks, seeping scientific certainty, and (2) the state of
perpetual, if genteel, war among the Exalted
Poobahs of Neo-Darwinism. These fellows do systematic violence to one
another. Theres not a significant
particular of the theory that has escaped the ridicule of the
evolutionists themselves. They smash theory
with speculation, destroy hypothesis with conjecture, and obliterate
supposition by shooting it with
assumption (and try to keep their voices down so the creationists
wont hear).
Now its worse. Darwins family is breaking up and some of the
children are leaving home. Not since
Origin of Species (1859) has there been such a brouhaha among the
fossils. Its a revolution in evolution.
Can you believe it? Darwinism, old and new, is on its way to the
garbage can that body of "scientific
truth" that has for generations separated thinking men from the
intellectually unwashed. If youre a
creationist, however, dont get too excited; its not evolution
thats going, only Darwin. Hes being replaced
by the new magic. Ill explain.
Darwin did not create evolution (the theory evolved), he made it
respectable by describing a mechanism of
change: natural selection. By this he meant that the environment
kills some animals quicker than others.
(Neo-Darwinism defines it that some animals have more offspring than
others.) This simple fact became
the effective agency of evolution. "Differential mortality," given
enough time, has within its blindness and
brainlessness the wherewithal to make encoded DNA out of dirt,
Shakespeare out of slime, and music out
of mud. Natural selection, according to the textbooks, has all the
creative power and wisdom of God if
there was a God.
With Darwin, evolution became the rage; everything had to be thought
of in evolutionary terms. Scientists
noticed, however, that Darwin hadnt said enough about change. He had
outlined only the survival of the
fittest; nothing had been said about the arrival of the fittest.
Darwin failed to explain where nature got the
collection from which to make her selection.
For a while some evolutionists fiddled around with an earlier theory
of change: Lamarckianism. Lamarck
said that giraffes were born with longer necks because mamma spent so
much time straining for the
greenery in the treetops. Evolution limped along with Lamarck for a
while. It got a new shot of scientific
respectability from the emerging science of genetics. Gregor Mendel
and Hugo de Vries demonstrated that
changes in reproductive systems produced variety within kinds. De
Vries coined the word "mutation"
(change).
Evolutionists landed on the mutation with both feet and Neo-Darwinism
was born. Mutations, it turned out,
are the raw material for natural selection. Neo-Darwinism promised
that tiny changes (microevolution) will
gradually accumulate into the new kinds (macroevolution).
Evolutionists happily filled the textbooks with
examples of microevolution (black moths, blind fruit flies, et al.)
and assured one and all that evolution was
now proved.
Creationist scientists have been pointing out that (1) there are no
undisputed transitional forms in the fossil
record, (2) the overwhelming tendency in genetics is against change,
(3) gradualism is a totally inadequate
explanation for the complexity evident in the biological order, (4)
the mathematics dont work the theory
is magnificently improbable, and (5) all the "evidence" for
macroevolution consists of complicated
descriptions of what might have happened extrapolations from
microevolution. The standard response of
the evolutionist establishment has been to declare that all non-
evolutionists are, thereby, nonscientists.
School children are told to believe that the evidence is there
because "all scientists" say its there, like the
emperors new clothes. But thats not what theyve been saying to one
another.
Challenges About 1940, University of California geneticist Richard
Goldschmidt (The Material Basis
of Evolution) blew the whistle. He said it was time to admit the true
nature of the fossil record and admit
the failure of theoretical gradualism. He said paleontology couldnt
find the transitional fossils for a very
simple reason: they arent there. Goldschmidt held that the theory
should be brought in line with the
evidence; it should think of quantum leaps rather than tiny changes
shading into one another over the vast
stretches of time for example evolutionists should admit that a
reptile laid an egg and hatched a bird (the
"Hopeful Monster").
If that werent enough, Goldschmidt explained that minuscule
rearrangements in the cells and genes
couldnt produce what is found in nature. To support this point, he
challenged fellow evolutionists to
explain in detail the gradual evolution of eighteen structures,
including the comparatively simple feather. No
takers. Evolutionists dismissed Goldschmidt as a lunatic; they
shouted even louder that the emperor (secular
humanism) is indeed clothed in scientific truth.
In the past three decades, evolutionists by the hundreds have bailed
out. The fight for creationism is being
led by some of the worlds finest scientists. Evolutionists pretend
that the creation-evolution debate is a
case of Elmer Gantry, a sweaty consternation, shouting absurdities at
Albert Einstein. Not so. Example: I
have before me a copy of a speech by Colin Patterson, senior
paleontologist at the British Museum of
Natural History in London and editor of its journal. It was presented
at the American Museum of Natural
History in New York City (November 5, 1981). Title: "Evolution and
Creationism." Patterson dropped a
bombshell by announcing that he woke up one night with the
realization that "I had been working on this
stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it."
He went on to demonstrate that
evolution is "an anti-theory that conveys anti-knowledge."
Now the latest: Evolutions new wave is being led by Harvard
paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. As editor
of Natural History, journal of the American Museum of Natural
History, Gould has been reworking
evolutionary theory. In May 1977 he pointed out that "the rarity of
transitional forms in the fossil record
persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
In June of that year Gould predicted the vindication of Goldschmidt
the revival of the "Hopeful Monster."
Evolutions popedom let out a scream that could be heard all the way
back to the late stone age. Gould
wisely backed off, disavowed any connection with Goldschmidts
thesis, and proceeded to restate the basic
hypothesis in different language.
With Gould, gradualism is out and natural selection has nothing to do
with macroevolution, i.e., exit
Neo-Darwinism. He does not, of course, solve the genetic problem: why
and how a new species springs
up. He simply asserts that it does.
You should know two things about all this: First, that as
evolutionism follows Gould, it is tacitly admitting
that the creationists have been right all along about the nature of
the evidence. Second, the Neo-Darwinian
gradualism saturating schoolbooks and course outlines is officially
nonscientific.
Gould overcomes the scientific absurdities in evolutionary theory by
simple declaration. Mutations have the
demonstrated inability to jump puddles; now, by Gouldian fiat, they
vault over oceans. He is the fairy
godmother of evolution, who waves his magic wand over Cinderella's
coach and turns mice into horses.
Gould's magic words are not "bippety-boppety-boo"; he
prefers "punctuated equilibria."
One more thing: Gould troubled himself to testify in Arkansas, where
creationism lost its shirt in court. It
appears he wants to enforce textbook evolution by law while he and
his friends debate whether their
private version is science. An essay in the Chronicle of Higher
Education (April 14, 1982) warns
evolutionists not to debate creationists. Evolutionists always lose,
it seems, because their adversaries are
"incredibly well prepared" and they "know how to manipulate the
media." Thats the plan: Dont debate;
legislate.
Remember the words of Hilaire Belloc:
Bit scientists who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh! Let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about
Confusion to the enemy!
-- Duane Schwingel (duane@mytalk.com), August 25, 1999.
Al K. Lloyd: No, you frigging dumbass, not "conincidence" but rather SIMILAR DESIGN. I mean, if one advocates CREATION (as Andy does), that sort of implies that there exists a CREATOR. And the CREATOR certainly could CREATE two or more separate species using a SIMILAR DESIGN. If you would THINK about stuff before you post, you would be a lot better off. You pathetic, moronic BONEHEAD.
Stan Faryna: You are quite right, we definitely need to not let such issues divide us away from our common goal. Thank you for reminding us.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.
Ditto Stan and KOS. Lets not overthink this.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
A. Einstein (1941)
-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), August 25, 1999.
It's pretty clear that Roger Chambers relies on relatively few people
ever having heard of Stephen Jay Gould, much less read what Gould has
been saying. His description of Gould's position is hilarious, kind
of like accusing the Pope of bigamy (but using big words).
And none of the changes the fact of evolution. Gould's difference
from Darwin is that Gould is suggesting a slightly different *method*
by which evolution does its thing. Evolution is a fact. The various
theories of evolution are attempts to explain what *causes*
evolution. The modern positions have access to tools Darwin did not
-- the genome itself. What changed theories explaining the mechanics
of evolution was computers -- the idea that life develops from a
sperm and egg by following a program, and that changing only a single
bit can change the macro-level behavior of the entire program
drastically. Programmers have long known this, but it's taken a while
for evolutionists to understand that it applies to DNA the same way
it applies to software.
Perhaps a more informative article about events in the world of
evolutionary theory could be found in less biased publications, and
more recent than 17 years old. The field is fascinating, but requires
an open mind.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 25, 1999.
How you can tell if you have been brainwashed:
Your brain has a fresh, lemony scent.
You pull bits of loufa sponge out of your ear canal.
You think a lot about Downy Fabric Softener.
You walk around in a daze saying, "Charge it" over and over again.
Steel wool gives you Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
You leave your money in the bank.
-- Forrest Covington (theforrest@mindspring.com), August 25, 1999.
And since when, Flint, is evolution an absolutely established FACT????? It is a scientific theory -- like CREATION -- for which there is EVIDENCE, both pro and con!!
(Personally, I believe in the Garden of Eden. Lots of mud.)
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.
KOS:
To make sure even the slowest reader got the point, I said it three
times. Oops, not enough, so here we go again.
Scientific facts are what they are. They are regarded as self-
evident, like evolution or gravity. They just are. A theory is an
attempt to EXPLAIN a fact or set of facts. For a long time, we had
Newton's theory of gravity, which was pretty good, but not quite
perfect. Indeed, Newton's theory of gravity failed to explain some
pheonomena. Einstein's theories explained gravity very differently,
and (it turns out) more accurately.
However, we still don't have anti-gravity or even know if it's
possible. That's because our theories of gravity don't explain
gravity well enough to know if it's possible, much less well enough
to allow us to develop antigravity.
BUT NOTE THAT GRAVITY REMAINS A FACT!!! And we'll have one theory of
gravity after another, probably for centuries to come, each doing a
little better job of explaining the FACT of gravity than the last one.
Do you start to understand the difference between a fact and a
theory? These are NOT just different points on a spectrum of
certainty, like fact, then theory, then hypothesis, then guess. Facts
are what they are. Theories are attempts to EXPLAIN facts. Is this
clear yet?
OK, evolution is a fact. It is regarded as self-evident by all who
examine the evidence, just like gravity is self-evident to all who
consider the evidence. And evolution doesn't care if you believe in
it or not, any more than gravity does. Species still evolve, and
dropped bricks still fall, belief or not.
You can certainly argue that God created evolution, and made it work
however it actually works, leaving it up to us to figure out what He
did. God created gravity as well, for all we know (and we have NO
idea how gravity works -- whether it's a 'force' or whether there are
graviton particles or whether is a distortion in the fabric of space-
time of what. Theories abound. Gravity remains a fact, see?)
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 25, 1999.
Flint: good post.
Forrest: LOL
KOS: The Garden of Eden is one of many age old myths. Myths rely on
faith, evolution relies on science. But wait. Science is just a new
religion.
We are on the verge of fabricating a new creation myth, one in which
angels and aliens will somehow be interwoven with ESP, post-quantum
theory, and that mysterious substance called DNA.
-- a (a@a.a), August 25, 1999.
potent:
As a child I was brainwashed into accepting evolution as factual.
But when supernatural intervention opened my eyes, I realized that
evolution was a brilliant deceit, devised by an evil supernatural
entity.
Humans are so easy to fool with their physical limitations and sloppy
thinking.
-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), August 25, 1999.
No, Flint, evolution is not some self-validating axiom that is self evident, it is a THEORY. It is itself an EXPLANATION of why things are. (So there is no mistake, lets be clear that we are talking about evolution in the sense of one species "evolving" into another separate species -- e.g., the old monkies-to-human type stuff. Hmmmm ... I wonder if Deano is the "missing link"?)
Anywho, dude, there has NEVER been a verified case of one species EVOLVING to another. The evidence is NOT there. Unless you know something I don't. But I'd love to hear about it.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.
KOS:
I can only suggest that if you're interested, you start reading. Your
statement sounds very much like saying that there has NEVER been a
documented case of an actual baseball game being played. Such a
statement is so blatantly, self-evidently false as to make one
sputter helplessly. It's like saying, the moon doesn't exist! And if
someone says LOOK, there it is, you can say Huh? I don't see
anything. Incomprehensible!
In any case, your concept of an evolutionary ladder is a mistake.
Evolution is more like a bush. People didn't evolve from monkeys, but
people and monkeys at some point had a common ancestor. It's no
accident that the bone structure of the forelimbs of people, monkeys,
and even whales is the same. All had common ancestors. Read some
books, it's fascinating. I can't teach it here.
Maybe you can start with a really fascinating case -- the evolution
of corn from teosinte. Corn is a recent mutation, and unique in one
important respect -- it can't survive without our help, and never
could!
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 25, 1999.
Corn is a recent mutation, and unique in one important respect --
it can't survive without our help, and never could!
Well, that's a new one for me. I'm not quite sure how to
investigate your assertion, although I have no reason to doubt you.
Fascinating...
-- Dog Gone (layinglow@rollover.now), August 25, 1999.
In a way, you are right Flint -- it is not "an accident" that different species share common designs. (And certainly not a "coincidence", like Bonehead was saying.) But this does not "prove" evolution. THE FACT IS, THIS COMMONALITY AMONG SPECIES CAN JUST AS WELL POINT TO A CREATOR WHO USED SIMILAR DESIGNS IN HIS CREATIONS!!!
And again, I am using evolution in the sense of across species, NOT withing a species. Mutations within a species prove nothing.
Plus, I really like that Garden of Eden story.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.
woah! you guys are too deep for me, eh. You could get stuck in a loop
here.
Evolution is a fact as Flint says, the proof is that religion evolves
to fit reality.
The way I broke out of the loop is to become an Atheist. Had to make a
choice.
But Einstein was on to something. Is Pantheism considered a religion?
-- Loopy Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.
Creation, evolution, DNA...omnipotence, I think that is the word.
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 25, 1999.
"Evolution is a fact"
rant on
Dear oh dear Flint...
You have REALLY outed yourself as a know-nothing now my challenged
friend...
It is quite evident that you are clueless in this department as well
as computer science and all matters pertaining to y2k thereof...
One more time, moron, do a little, a leeetle research... a little 2 +
2, open what remains of your mind, ...
nahhhh, never gonna happen, it's flint we're talking about after
all...
uh, flint, digressing for one minute,
why is it that we only ever see one side of the moon... why is it
that the moon rotates at precisely the same rpm that it takes 24
hours for the earth to rotate... why is it that during an an eclipse
the moon is precisely the same diameter as the sun... why is it that
in ancient cultures they have NO record of the moon as being in our
skies prior to 12,000 BC (approx.) years ago...
as I said flint you are a know-nothing and are not worth the time of
day listening to - please don't bring your false-science-illuminati-
bred "education" to this forum...
you insult us all by doing so...
you've had 50 years or so to get your act together and you've learnt
NOTHING.. other than as George would say is "have a way with words" -
not fooling anyone flint, anyone with half a brain
rant off
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
Chris, there is just as much evidence that suggests that EVOLUTION "evolved" to fit convenient social theories as there is that religion likewise evolved. The entire social theory of Hitler's doings was sustained by "survival of the fittest", the breeding of a "super race", the belief that morality was relative, that the "law of the jungle" prevailed, etc., etc..
Atheists need evolution as much as fundamentalists need creation. Think about it.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 25, 1999.
Whenever a DNA polymerase copies a piece of DNA, there is a small but
significant chance that it will insert the wrong base pair. Chances
are higher that this "mistake" will occur when the DNA is exposed to
ionizing radiation or intercalating chemical mutagens. What do you
call this? This is a point mutation. Sometimes whole pieces of
chromosomes break off and recombine with other chromosomes. That is
called translocation. You have lots of mutations and translocations in
your very own DNA. Some are in your somatic cells. These mutations
do not get passed on to your offspring. Some mutations are in your
germline cells. These can and do get passed onto offspring.
Before I put you to sleep, let's just say that there is HARD
experimental evidence that mutations occur, and that they can be
passed down to subsequent generations. Got it?
Now, let's suppose that some of these mutations make a person less
likely to make babies. What happens to this person's DNA? It gets
lost...fewer and fewer descendents carry it. Suppose, in another
person, that some mutations make him MORE likely to make babies. What
happens to this lucky devil's DNA? It becomese more common, as do the
"desired" traits encoded by that guy's DNA.
What do you call that? Answer: NATURAL SELECTION.
If you believe in MUTATION and NATURAL SELECTION, you believe in
evolution! Why is that so heretical to religious people? Why is it
so hard to accept?
To humor some of you here are concrete examples of evolution in
action, witnessed or proposed by scientists:
1) Changes in antibiotic resistance among pathogenic bacterial
strains, caused by horizontal gene transfer of virulence factor by
phages across species.
2) Changes in resistance among clones of cancer cells to chemotherapy
or among mutant swarms of HIV-1 to RT inhibitors.
3) Mutation of hox genes creates drastic and sudden changes in body
plan in any animal
4) Muller's Ratchet: Any sub-group that is put through a bottleneck is
statistically different than the population from which it arose, prior
to the bottleneck event.
5) Evolvability can evolve: Organisms under environmental stress
change their susceptibility to mutation; a possible biochemical
explanation for "punctuated equillibrium."
6) Juvenilization: drastic changes in body plan are possible by
relatively few changes in genes that regulate pre-adult development;
Example: all vertebrates seen to have evolved from tube worms that are
sessile as adults but motile as larvae. New species arose when mating
genes were abnormally active in larvae, setting the stage for letting
lamprey and cartilagenous fish to emerge...
7) Fossil evidence for intermediate forms between species, ie.,
between humans and chimpanzees there are australogpithicines and homo
erectus.
8) Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. Why are there monkey-like tails
on human fetuses at a certain stage? Why are human and fish embryos
almost idential in morphology at a certain stage?
etc. etc. I can think of more but you get the idea. Evolution can be
explained in every nook and cranny of biochemistry and biology. I
don't see why it's so difficult to accept.
In my humble opinion as a scientist, I think it's fine that there are
relgious people who believe what they do. But the literal
interpretation of the Genesis story simply doesn't hold up to
scientific standards of evidence. The stories are great, but they
were meant to impart spritual lessons like Jesus' parables, not give
us a history lesson.
Furthermore, you can't be scientific and say that observation of
nature proves the existence of God. That is logically impossible,
induction mistaken for deduction. Nothing we observe in the natural
world can be scientifically explained by anything but natural causes.
Experiments and tests of natural phenomena can only model, predict,
and prove what goes on in nature, not the Super-natural. Science only
cares about what can be tested. And evolution, in my opinion, passes
the test with flying colors.
Can scientists believe in God? Sure. Can they believe that God is
behind evolution? Why not? I certainly do! But these are ultimately
matters of FAITH or METAPHYSICS, NOT REASON. It would be just as
unscientific to say that THERE IS NO GOD because because it's also an
untestable assumption.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 25, 1999.
<>
Sitting at home on the new millenium watching Leave it to Beaver
drinking a cold one sounds pretty pathetic to me.
-- Boz (boz_inc@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.
Andy, it's quite obvious you're in love with Flint, it's almost
embarrassing to watch you from behind my screen. You're like a
disfunctional lover, co-dependant type, who just can't give up the
idea that he will never change the personality and mind of his object
of love/hatred.
Have some English decorum will ya?
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.
No Chris,
He's pushed me over the EDGE!!! :)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 25, 1999.
"Chris, there is just as much evidence that suggests that EVOLUTION
"evolved" to fit convenient social theories as
there is that religion likewise evolved."
Oops...we lost KoS into that loop.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 25, 1999.
<>
It is really? Last time I checked it was a very weak theory.
Remember, facts create feelings--feelings don't create facts.
Boz
-- Boz (Boz_inc@yahoo.com), August 25, 1999.
Coprolith,
no-one is disputing the theory of evolution - what I am disputing is
the fact that human evolution has been evolving for a surprisingly
short time - anywhere between 400,000-200,000 BC.
Do the basic research cop - Darwinism is a crock. In no way did we
evolve from apes.
We've been evolving - one more time - for a VERY short period of time.
Work out the imlications for yourself.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
coprolith: How many times have I clarified, just to be sure, that we are talking about evolving from ONE SPECIES to ANOTHER SPECIES? Have mutations been scientifically verified? Yes. Can these mutations result in favorable or unfavorable characteristics that are then utilized by natural selection? Yes. Can mutations and natural selection result in one species transforming into another species? NOT SO FAR AS ANYONE CAN SHOW. Thus is the state of the THEORY of evolution.
Boz: Dude, you need to rent yourself some good girlee mudwrestling videos. June Cleaver don't cut it.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
Loopy,
You got it for Einstein. Sorry you missed the loop. God, evolution,
science, whatever work out just fine if WE let 'em. Nobody likes
unsolicited advice, but, relax and think about ALL of it.
Evolution? Sure, no doubt. God? Yeah, watching creation evolve
whatever, wherever to utltimately produce His no doubt many
likenesses. Guilt, while a misused tool of religion, does separate us
from our fellow planet travelers doesn't it? Key to the Kingdom as it
were whether we like it or not.
-- Carlos (riffraff1@cybertime.net), August 26, 1999.
Carlos, what the hell have you been smoking? "Its all good" went out with M.C.Hammer.
Evolution is far from a sure thing. But it is held tightly as "fact", because people like the idea. Creationism tends to be real disturbing, so its dismissed.
Gee, kind of reminds me of DGIs and GIs....
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
KOS,
I, like Einstein, believe in creationism - only not the way most
people think - we also believe in "God"...
Us - Humans - go back a LONG way - we are relative newcommers to this
orb... Darwinism is fair enough but it cannot explain humanity and
it's brief history here...
I wish I could lay my hands on the link that proves that human dna
abruptly existed at a certain point BC - the test was repeated at
several major University research departments and all had similar
results...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
Barb: Do you like to mudwrestle?
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
Spain!!!
Maybe Darwin was right after all :)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
It's hard to find transitional forms between species because the
geographic and climatic changes which make new niches can happen
rapidly. And new niches are filled rapidly by organisms suited to
compete in them for limited food and energy.
Moreover, most of the time a new species does not "replace the old
one;" they just coexist and drift apart genetically, usually in
extreme isolation from each other.
Finally, it's not easy to see speciation because it also happens too
slowly. We have only been watching these sorts of things for 100
years or so. That is not enough time to see one species change into
another; tens of thousands if not 100s of thousands of years is more
like it.
The other problem with the lack of so called transitional forms is
that it's not always easy to define a so-called species. The olde-
time definition is that a species is a group of organisms that can
successfully interbreed and produce viable, fertile, offspring. But
lots of things, namely those thigns that don't require sexual
reproduction to multiply, are also classified under different species.
Are recombinant bacteria created in the lab new species? Are cell
lines derived from human tissues and cancers new species? Would one
of my human cell lines growing in the lab containing mutated mouse
oncogenes be called a "transitional" species? Are mice that have been
engineered to produce a certain jellyfish gene that makes 'em glow in
the dark a "Transitional species" between jellyfish and mice? We are
getting into semantic soup here.
Nevertheless, hard evidence DOES exist for clearly transitional forms
in the fossil record. Arcaeoptherix(sp?) is a spitten image of
something that's half-dinosaur, half-bird. Between humans and
chimpanzees, there is a long line of fossils with VERY gradual change
between us and the other apes. I list them here: A. aferensis-->A.
africanus-->H. habilus-->H. erectus-->H. sapiens (archaic,
Neanderthal)-->H. sapiens sapiens.
From primordial soup to humans there are also lots of transitional
forms, many of which still exist on earth today. Comet impact
material, rich in complex organic molecules --> nucleic acid polymers
which can sloppily self-replicate on certain clay templates-->nucleic
acid and amino acid hybrid self replicating reactions in lipid
bilayers and micelles --> proto-ribosome "life" --> RNA "life" where
RNA serves as both message and genetic template --> DNA/RNA/protein
life in the first bacteria --> heterotrophic sulfur or iron-reducing
archaebacteria --> photosynthetic bacteria --> protoeukarytoic
archaebacteria/moneran symbiots --> yeasts --> protozoans -->
multicellular animal life (sponges) --> flatworms --> echinoderms
(starfish, sea squirts) --> tunicates with motile larvae --> lampreys
--> skates --> sharks --> bony fish --> lungfish --> amphibians -->
reptiles --> egg-laying primitive mammals and shrews --> tree shrews -
-> lemurs --> monkeys --> gibbons --> great apes --> humans. This
chain is supported by both morphology and by genetic evidence by
studying degree of similarity between DNA sequences of all the
branches in the tree of life.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 26, 1999.
Check this out -
DNA data yield new human-origins view
DNA evidence suggests that, beginning around 200,000 years ago,
separate African and Asian populations evolved into anatomically
modern humans.
References:
Harris, E.E., and J. Hey. 1999. X chromosome evidence for ancient
human histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96
(March 16):3320.
Further Readings:
Bower, B. 1999. DNA's evolutionary dilemma. Science News 155(Feb.
6):88.
Sources:
Eugene E. Harris
Rutgers University
Department of Genetics
Nelson Biological Labs
604 Allison Road
Piscataway, NJ 08854-8082
Jody Hey
University of Edinburgh
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology
Ashworth Laboratories
King's Buildings
Edinburgh EH9 3JT
Scotland
From Science News, Vol. 155, No. 12, March 20, 1999, p. 181.
Copyright ) 1999, Science Service.
Link at
http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arc99/3_20_99/fob4ref.htm
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
And THIS...
Human Origins News
DNA Knocks Neanderthals out of Human Family Tree
Submitted by: CNN
July 11, 1997
Web posted at: 10:36 a.m. EDT (1436 GMT)
LONDON (AP) -- DNA from a Neanderthal skeleton is giving powerful
backing to the theory that all humanity descended from an "African
Eve" about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago -- and that Neanderthals were
an evolutionary dead end.
Genetic differences indicate the Neanderthals were a different
species than the early humans who swept them aside in Europe and
western Asia -- although they appear to have split from a common
ancestor a half-million years ago, according to German and U.S.
scientists.
The DNA test "clearly lends support to this idea about our ancestry:
that we have all come out of Africa quite recently in history," said
Svante Paabo, who worked on the research at the Zoological Institute
at the University of Munich.
Critics say researchers drew hasty conclusions
Critics of that theory say the argument will rage on, and they await
the results of many more DNA tests.
"It is a brilliant, innovative piece of work. I just doubt that it
can be faulted on technical grounds," Milford H. Wolpoff, professor
of anthropology at the University of Michigan. But he says the
researchers have drawn hasty conclusions.
The findings were published in Cell, a journal based in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and outlined Thursday at a news conference in London.
Paabo said his results were independently confirmed at Pennsylvania
State University.
The Munich team took a small sample -- 0.4 grams -- from the upper
arm bone of a skeleton found in 1857 in the Neander Valley near
Duesseldorf -- the first Neanderthal skeleton ever found.
Comparing 378 base pairs of the Neanderthal's mitochondrial DNA to
that of modern humans, the researchers found an average of 27
differences between modern and Neanderthal DNA -- far more than the
typical variation of eight among modern humans.
Mitochondria, the structures within human cells that help produce
energy, have their own genes. These genes are passed down the female
line with only the occasional mutation.
Paabo cautioned that the study of more Neanderthal DNA samples might
turn up some mixing, and thus confirm the possibility of some
interbreeding between Neanderthals and our Cro-Magnon ancestors.
Tantalizingly similar to modern man
Even if Neanderthals were not our ancestors, they were tantalizingly
similar. They walked erect, used tools and there is evidence that
they coexisted and learned some skills from Cro-Magnon people.
One striking difference is that Neanderthals were bigger than modern
humans and had larger brains.
"Any superiority that modern humans had was probably a very slight
one at the time and that's why it took so long for the Neanderthals
to be replaced," said Chris Stringer, a researcher at London's
Natural History Museum.
"Of course this is only one specimen ... but it fits so very well
with the view of one side of the argument about Neanderthals -- that
they are very distinct, that they are not our ancestor -- that I
think it goes a very long way toward resolving the Neanderthal
problem," Stringer said.
Wolpoff, the University of Michigan anthropology professor, argued
that the fact that a trait or gene sequence seen in ancient people is
absent from moderns doesn't mean that one is not the ancestor of the
other. The trait could simply have disappeared over time.
If there is a uniform difference between Neanderthal and modern DNA,
he added, that may be because widespread mingling of populations has
produced uniformity now. And, he added, a divergence in mitochondrial
DNA does not necessarily mean a divergence of species.
"What they should be saying is that the argument has just begun,"
Wolpoff said.
link at
http://www.pro-am.com/origins/news/article24.html
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
Of course, like y2k, some of you can't handle the truth...
Hey, Christians, this doesn't mean there isn't a God, it just means
that you've been brainwashed (through no fault of your own) by the
system... uh, you know, the same system that is dumbing down the
American population now, the same sytem that has fed you bullshit
religious ideas to divide and rule, and the same system that is
taxing and enslaving you up the kazoo with the fiat money scam...
wise up folks - it's ALL interrelated...
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
This reminds me of trying to talk to someone about the deficit vs.
the national debt. They are two different things, and yet one
actually creates the other. If you don't make sure the person you are
talking to realizes that, you will argue forever.
There is a difference between evolution (things evolving: getting
larger such as the horse did, maturing earlier, etc. which is a
fact) and evolutionary origin. (We started out as one species
and evolved into another, which is a theory) I think that is
the point Flint was trying to make. Until you establish which of
these you are talking about, you will argue forever!
-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 26, 1999.
Ok Gayla - let me make it simple - one species does NOT evolve into
another. No way San Jose.
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
Anyone interested...
order this book from the library... or buy it
"Gods of the New Millenium", Alan Alford, 1996, isbn 0 9527994 0 5
www.eridu.co.uk
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
Al K. Lloyd: No, you frigging dumbass, not "conincidence" but
rather SIMILAR DESIGN. I mean, if one
advocates CREATION (as Andy does), that sort of implies that
there exists a CREATOR. And the CREATOR
certainly could CREATE two or more separate species using a
SIMILAR DESIGN. If you would THINK about
stuff before you post, you would be a lot better off. You
pathetic, moronic BONEHEAD.
Stan Faryna: You are quite right, we definitely need to not let
such issues divide us away from our common goal.
Thank you for reminding us. Hey, KoS! I think it was
pretty cool the way you sucked up to Stan, by telling him he was right
about steering clear of a devisive thread, and then not only blasted
someone, in the same post, but continued to do over and over again, in
post after post.
So, ya hoping Stan will let you have some of his
stash, or are you just hoping he'll mud wrestle with you?
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 26, 1999.
Since everyone is embroiled in contrivercy I thought that it my be good
to stir up the pot.
An oddity about evolution is that there is no diversification of Homo
Sapien unlike all the
other species. What are our evolutionary possibilities?
Or another question, what are we going to create?
Personally I am a big "Quantum leap in a crisis" kind of guy. Of course
there is alot of "will
to live" that is mixed into the bag.
One thing is for sure nature is impartial, we are living under grace.
That is the one concept
that will keep species continueing, weather, earthquakes, meteors ect.
don't care who you
are. It just happens.
I think what makes man real differant is that we are our own worst
threat. We have to change
that or our evolutionary experiance will be real short.
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Good grief, people, this isn't that complicated.
Either you believe in God without limits or you don't. Either you
believe God has the capacity to have a personal influence in your
life or your don't. If you choose, as I do, to believe in a God
without limits, then you must accept the latter. Beyond that, little
else matters.
-- Hiway (Hiway441@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
You know, pretty soon all this is going to be moot. In another
generation at the LATEST we will have screwed around with our DNA so
much that we will, in effect, become our own creators.
Disagree? DNA is our *SOURCE CODE* and the Human Genome Project is
thisclose to having it all mapped. Once mapped, It'll take at MOST
another 10-15 years to figure out what's what. After that, all bets
are off. After that, we become 'software' that can be reprogramed at
will.
Make no mistake, Genetic Engineering will be to the first 25 years of
the next century what silicon and software were to the last 25 years
of this century.
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), August 26, 1999.
Aloha King
So, you like the story about the Garden of Eden? Then you'll be
interested to know that recent research suggests that all our woes
didn't begin with that juicy apple, but instead when Adam asked Eve to
mud wrestle. She wasn't to sure, but agreed, and well, the rest is
history.
-- grngrl (jhandt@gte.net), August 26, 1999.
-TECH32- has just given all inquiring minds a possible 'reason' for
the monumental disaster we may soon be facing.
It's simply out of the question for humans to just 'trust' any more,
isn't it? The thing that always tickles me most about this is the
implication that only 'small minds trust', as opposed to 'large minds
continue to inquire'.
The large minds certainly have 'created' an incredible mess. I really
wish they'd give it back to the one *I* trust. Things were moving
along just fine. Darn.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Spain:
The Garden of Eden stories evolve as well:
One day in the Garden of Eden, Eve calls out to God, "Lord, I have a
problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful
garden
and
all of these wonderful animals, and that hilarious comedy snake, but
I'm
just not happy."
Why is that, Eve?", comes the reply from above.
Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples."
"Well, Eve, in that case I have a solution. I shall create a man for
you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an
enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you
properly. All
in all he'll give you a hard time. But he'll be bigger and faster
and more
muscular than you, he'll be really good at fighting and kicking a
ball
about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, and not altogether bad in
the
sack."
"Sounds great," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah, well. He's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick.
But
you
can have him on one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
-- Anita (spoonera@msn.com), August 26, 1999.
Brian, you need some clarification here. You said:
"An oddity about evolution is that there is no diversification of
Homo Sapien unlike all the other species. What are our evolutionary
possibilities?"
Well, no species is diversified, by definition of what a species is.
Perhaps you intended to imply that Homo Sapiens has no close
relatives on the primate branch of the tree of life? But maybe to a
martian, the differences between men and other primates might be
subtle -- a tail on some, fur on some, etc.
Other branches of the tree of life have proven to be fairly
unproductive, such as horses. Like people, there used to be multiple
species within the horse family, and all but one have died off. From
an evolutionary standpoint, this kind of relative uniqueness is
viewed as a sign of weakness or failure of a branch.
One famous biologist, asked what we could deduce of God from an
examination of His works, was said to have replied "an inordinate
fondness for beetles!" Beetles are the most successful branch,
evolutionarily speaking. God must really love them, he made so many.
And oh yes, for Andy, the process of tidal locking is well
understood. The rotation rate of all moons that do NOT show one face
to their primaries is slowing down toward that point all the time. We
really do understand gravity well enough to explain this -- it would
be a supernatural miracle if it did NOT happen, not to mention send
our theories of gravity back to the drawing board!
Just because you aren't aware of simple celestial mechanics and you
think gravitational phenomena are "magic" doesn't mean anyone who
does understand these principles is stupid, hehehe. If you aren't
being mocked by an imposter, you are a beacon of ignorance for all to
marvel at. But you might look up tidal locking anyway, in case you
missed high school?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 26, 1999.
Will continue,
-TECH32- has just given all inquiring minds a possible 'reason' for
the monumental disaster we may soon be facing.
I take this to mean that you think Genetic Engineering (GE) will be a
disaster? I don't. Like all new technology, it's a double edged
sword.
Think about it for a sec. ALL diseases will be a thing of the
past. If a new virus like AIDS pops up, just reprogram your immune
system to deal with it. Cancer? Hah! Those 'broken' cells that
don't know how to turn themselves off will finally be 'fixable'.
And just think about the commercial possibilities for the cosmetics
industry. No more hair dyes, colored contacts or plastic surgery.
Want Madonna's hair? No problem, a little bit of her (copyrighted)
DNA merged with yours and poof! You have *her* hair, not just hair
that looks like hers.
And what about deep-space exploration? What would be wrong with
creating humans that required less oxygen and food for extended space
travel?
If all this sounds like science fiction, well, today it is. But soon,
much sooner than most people think, all of the above (and more)
will be science fact.
-TECH32-
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), August 26, 1999.
Actually TECH32, you have just described to me the *epitome* of the
biggest nightmare this planet has yet to experience. Well BEYOND any
disaster Y2K could possibly bring about, and the indescribable level
of *arrogance* and *ignorance* human beings are capable of. Think we
have population problems now? Good God. Go visit Gilda's thread on
population, and read my views about our magnificent, astounding, mind-
boggling brilliance.
Large minds, indeed. What a pathetic joke. Mad scientists would be
far more appropriate.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Gayla has a point. You must decide whether you are talking about
macro-evolution or micro-evolution. One teaches species develop into
other species, the other teaches and evolution within a species.
There is no Factual evidence for macro-evolution. There is not one
fossil found that shows transition. That is significant.
The problem with Western science is that their scientists no longer
demand doctorates learn foreign languages. If they did, they would
read the Japanese and French scientists and mathematicians who have
abandoned evolution.
Our discovery of DNA has led the mathmeticians to do the math on the
possibility of one cell evolving on its own. IT IS A MATHEMATICAL
impossibility.
So what do these advanced Eastern scientists believe. Have they
figured out a new theory to replace evolution? Some are searching, but
those who have disproved, factually, the THEORY of evolution is bogus
have moved into the belief that we were planted here. They haven't
expressed belief in God, but rather in aliens who placed us here.
Reminds me of Jastrow who was quoted in Time, "When the scientists
have finally reached the last ridge in their search for the cause of
life, they will finally peak over that last ridge and find a band of
theologians waiting for them."
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 26, 1999.
If you 'honestly' believe that to be a good and right thing (please
say it isn't so), it would make you and people like you far more
dangerous (in my mind) than our current president, who probably has
already placed an 'order' for thousands of himself. (with a down
payment from tax-payer's money)
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Or contributions from China!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My blood pressure is suggesting I go do my morning chores!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
snip,
"...a recent poll of Americans that showed that less than 44% belived
the Theory of Evolution to be credible."
From this I deduce that 56% of Americans are Bible Thumping Morons.
snip,
"I don't like the idea of my ancestors being monkeys. So yes I like
Creationism"- High school student interviewed on NBC News tonight.
Son of Bible Thumping Morons.
-- John F. (tinfoil hats @nd colanders.com), August 26, 1999.
Asking me to believe in evolution is an insult to my intelligence.
Spontaneous generation has been disproved, and the incredible
convoluted arguments attempting to show how evolution doesn't violate
the second law of thermodynamics are also ridiculous and illogical.
Because I know how smart I am compared to other college educated
people, after getting a Chemistry degree (generally all I had to do to
get the top score in a class was to study the two hours per credit
hour they recommend), I'm not very vulnerable to denigration of my
mental faculties either.
Furthermore, I've never been very subject to peer pressure or the
opinions of others, which makes me even more resistant to the current
herd mentality of evolutionists.
Finally, I have seen the futility of trying to work with a religious
institution that denies it is religious, or of trying to get
neutrality into the educational system. Therefore, my children are
not going to participate in our religious public education
institutions until they are adults in college, because public schools
do more brainwashing than educating, and I have the freedom to boycott
them in this country. Thank God!
Obviously, this will greatly help them academically too. Currently my
6 year old is in third grade, and easily handling the material.
Anyone who says she believes in creation because she's stupid or
uneducated will look really idiotic without her saying a word, by the
time I'm done with her!
Also notice that God never tries to prove His existence to anyone in
the Bible. Our existence (and that of everything else) is the proof,
the only proof needed. Those who deny this are "just plain foolish."
Even if they saw God, they would only say they had had a
hallucination afterwards. Even the senses can be fooled, after all.
Only our own thoughts are beyond doubt, as to existence...or are they?
Get my point?
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"
-- s.kohl (kohl@hcpd.com), August 26, 1999.
John F. may have just provided us evidence that there such a thing as
the missing link. Thanks John, always open to new and fresh ideas.
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 26, 1999.
Hey, so what if my ancestors are monkeys? Ultimately, my original
ancestor is an Omnipotent,Omniscient being who can fashion monkeys and
humans and flowers and supernovas. From a non christian who does not
let religion get in the way of spiritual awareness.
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 26, 1999.
grngrl, Anita: LOL, that was "rib-tickling"!
The whole Creation vs Evolution controversy is VERY much like Y2K insofar as the opinions of the people. (Macro-)Evolution has been handed to us as almost a "given", and interestingly its theory really sprouted back when the basic assumptions were being made that the universe was infinite -- it had always existed, it had no bounds.
Today, we (think we) know differently. The "big bang" theory. The estimated physical dimensions. And, last but not least, the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE that supports one species "evolving" into another. A universe that began an a finite point in time, with physical distance limitations, with species created by design is NOT in disagreement with the evidence.
The similarity with Y2K is that we are being handed another "given" -- that Y2K will just be a bump in the road. And it takes some independent thinking and researching of evidence if you want the truth.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
Duane,
nice long and onesided article BUT consider the source
-- justme (justme@justme.net), August 26, 1999.
This is what REALLY happened in the Garden of Eden: ;-)
Adam was walking around the Garden of Eden feeling very lonely so God
asked him. "what is wrong with you?". Adam said he didn't have anyone
to talk to.
God said that he was going to make Adam a companion and that it would
be a woman. He said, "This person will gather food for you, cook for
you, when you discover clothing she'll wash it for you. She will
always agree with every decision you make. She will bear your
children and never ask you to get up in the middle of the night to
take care of them. She will not nag you, and will always be the
first to admit she was wrong when you've had a disagreement. She
will never have a headache, and will freely give you love and passion
whenever you need it".
Adam asked God "What will a woman like this cost?"
God replied: "An arm and a leg"
Then Adam asked "What can I get for a rib?"
The rest is history!
-- Gayla (privacy@please.com), August 26, 1999.
Carlos: ""Science without religion is lame, religion without science
is blind." A. Einstein (1941)"
"You got it for Einstein. Sorry you missed the loop. God, evolution,
science, whatever work out just fine if WE let
'em. Nobody likes unsolicited advice, but, relax and think about
ALL of it."
What I got from Einstein's quote is without some sort of spiritual
attitude, science cannot reach its full potential. He didn't mention
THE God in his quote. I view scientific (atheist) pantheism as my
religion. The last part of his quote needs no explanation.
And I'm very relaxed. The rest of you are the ones spinning in that
loop. It's just amusing for me to watch (sorry I don't mean to sound
arrogant, it's my convictions after all). I'm not trying to convince
anyone, I have absolutely no desire to, it's futil. When I became
"aware", I was at peace with THE question, and never felt a need to
argue with anyone over it. But I wouldn't mind arguing evolution with
another atheist pantheist.
Andy: The more I watch you the more I'm convinced we come from
monkeys...and you're still close enough to your ancestral parents that
you rebel against them and denie them, just like an embarrassed teen
;-)
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
Geez louise. Looks like this here evolution thing is a genuine can of
worms. Sorry I touched it.
But for the last time, evolution doesn't prove or disprove God.
Evolution just is. It's how we got here. You can still love God and
still believe in evolution. You can still believe that God is
omnipotent and beyond time itself and still believe thay He worked
through evolution.
If it's not too much believe that mutation and chromosome translocation
occurs, why's it so much of a stretch to make the logical step and see
evolution? Consider the following example:
Suppose a male animal is born with an abnormal number of chromosomes in
many of his sperm. Most of his matings are unsuccessful because his
sperm could not properly fertilize ova. But oila! A genetically
similar mate is found, who happens to be susceptible to producing the
same--or similar--kinds of chromosome breaks. (That is, they both
inherited a transposon or endogenous retrovirus which lives in the same
genetic "hot spot" of the same chromosome.) The two mutant animals then
make a litter of baby animals that has the new chromosome number.
These young cannot mate with the other animals and produce fertile
offspring. They can only produce fertile offspring with those close
relatives who have the new number/pattern of chromosomes. Behold! A
new species is born (according to the zoological definition). Why is
that such a strech? It is a perfectly rational explanation for why and
how we can see different species.
Another point: God is not science. Science, by definition, observes
what is natural, not supernatural. Likewise, if miracles were ho-hum
and natural and predictable, then they wouldn't be SUPERnatural, would
they? Miracles would not be miracles. Why do you need science to prove
God? Isn't the Whole Picture enough for you?
Finally, KOS uses the word "species" a lot. The term is very
ambiguous. When terms are ambiguous your argument can be playing any
tune you want it to. How do we define "species?" Then we can play
ball, if I have the time.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 26, 1999.
Here's how new species can have pretty fundamental changes in body plan
in a fairly short time.
When a gene's (say, one that is involved in a developmental or
regulatory event) activity is altered at a very early stage in
embryogenesis, the organism's anatomy is fundamentally changed. The
earlier this change happens in development, the more profound the
change. That's why most (but not all) mutations in such early
developmental genes are lethal.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 26, 1999.
species die-back is indifferent to religious quibbling.good for the
overall strength of the herd,as well.only in the face of subjective
suffering is it an issue.no-one cries for the jack-rabbits when they
die back and except for the arrogant self pity of history,it'll be
the same for us.
-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.
The problem I have with creationism is that it's purported to be a
dichotomy between those who believe in God as defined by Judeo-
Christian religion and those who believe in science. I have a
problem with the fact that any argument on the subject of religion is
by default cast into the framework of a 2,000 year old Jewish cult of
personality, as if there is no other religion.
While it's true that the big three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)
are among the most populous on the planet, religion is far more
diverse than the Christians want to believe.
An element of intelligent creation certainly seems to exist, but I
hardly think that this necessitates the existence of YHWH.
Tim
-- Tim the Y2K nut (tmiley@yakko.cs.wmich.edu), August 26, 1999.
YHWH?
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Evolution is a religion.
I have a suggestion for those of you with an evolutionary belief
system (if you don't mind having your cage rattled). Dr. Kent Hovind
(former science instructor for 15 yrs.)has a website
(www.drdino.com). He is a creationist and travels around the world
debating evolutionists. His website is filled with information
refuting evolution. Also, he offers $250,000 to anyone who can
provide PROOF of macroevolution (it used to only be $10,000). I
believe someone on this thread offered evidences for evolution. Go
see if it holds water!
-- Sharon (sking@drought-ridden.com), August 26, 1999.
Ahh,KOS, mudwrestling...I get it now, that's the root of those chimp
dreams I've been having... latent desires for mudwrestling...
" Everybody's got something to hide---'cept me and my monkey."
That one's been playing in my head for weeks, now.
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 26, 1999.
Will,I think Tim means Yahweh,a name of God commonly known as
Jehovah.
-- Barb (awaltrip@telepath.com), August 26, 1999.
Thanks Barb. (star spangled salute to you, ha)
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
I believe Coprolith was the first on this thread to hit on the problem
that the term "species" needs to be defined. It is absolutely not
the black&white situation we learned in high school biology.
Wildlife behavior studies are showing the issue to be very complex.
There are politically- and economically-charged reasons for trying to
get it right. If that isolated "sub"species of bird is sufficiently
genetically isolated to be a species in its own right, then its
isolation may qualify it to be declared "rare" and subject to
endangered species regulation. Although extremely rare, the
scientific community does occasionally officially recognize new
species.
Ducks and other waterbirds have really muddied (for you, KoS) the
waters on this one. Anatomy alone (the study of the fossil record) is
not always enough to identify a new species. There are many "species"
of outwardly dissimilar ducks that readily interbreed and produce
viable offspring - the classic definition of species. And many that
are outwardly similar (what was until recently considered merely
separate color phases of the Western Grebe) that must be considered
separate species based on their behavior and social structure.
Perhaps this means we still don't really understand what a "species"
is, in which case KoS and Andy are jumping the gun assuming a
"species" cannot evolve into something different. Personally, I'm not
willing to let my inability to comprehend it all on a scientific level
lead me to the belief that evolution is not a proven fact or that
creationism (in the sense KoS and Andy have in mind) is even close to
a valid theory.
-- Brooks (brooksbie@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.
When I was about 13 (and that was many moons ago), I got in the most
trouble of my young life for suggesting, at Catechism, that Adam and
Ever were apes.
-- (raised Catholic) me (not@real.com), August 26, 1999.
Another point: God is not science. Science, by
definition, observes what is natural, not supernatural.
Likewise, if miracles were ho-hum and natural and
predictable, then they wouldn't be SUPERnatural,
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com)
Coprolith
I would be of the opinion that "God" set the "rules" and that they are
included in the laws of science. The problem is we do not have the
capacity to measure the cause and effects, therefore alot of
understandable stuff gets lumped into "supernatural". If a primitive
person looks at a TV they will think "spirits talk through a box" or
some such thing. Of course there is a scientific basis for TV working
as it does but the primitive person doesn't have the understanding of
the principles.
Even at our level of understanding there are lots of examples of
science dismissing events as "supernatural" rather than admitting their
ignorance. One of my favorites was the EPR Experiment in which
particles were shown to move faster than light. This was proved in 1982
and the meaning behind this revelation is profound yet beyond the
scientific community to understand the implications of this discovery.
It would be hard to dismiss this as "supernatural" yet it doesn't fit
into common understanding.
Strange Attractors is another discovery that is beyond our
understanding yet it has been shown as a reality. Science is actually
confining, I would say that "God" would reveal "itself" through math
rather than science in an objective manner. To show the expression of
"God" strictly through the "supernatural" is a rather primitive stance.
Miracles are only that which we can't measure or define at this point
of time. It doesn't mean that there isn't a way to measure it, we just
can't.
Of course I am an artistic Taoist type rather than a scientific
Christian so equating God with science is a stretch for me both ways.
15 billion years of universal evolution, we are dust from the stars.
To me evolution is the definitive universal principle that particles or
lifeforms follow naturally. We are created to evolve.
(Man is this ot or what :o)
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 26, 1999.
I'd just like to thank s.kohl for the post. I'm disturbed by all the
intelligent posts that are as deep as a spoon and as enlightened as a
dark room. I'll ignore the complete morons.
Just for the record, I believe there is a God who created the whole
process and has watched as it evolved. I doubt he's very impressed.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Just for the record, I believe there is a God who created the whole
process
and has watched as it evolved. I doubt he's very impressed.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Will
I am suprised you said god is a "he" :o) Must have been a slip
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 26, 1999.
I think you're right xxxx!
It's a very emotive subject and most people cannot break through their
childhood indoctrination - oh well... :)
best regards,
Andy
----- Original Message -----
From: xxxx
To: <2000EOD@prodigy.net>
Sent: 26 August 1999 10:30
Subject: rationalism
> I was glad to read your post about Sitchen, Lloyd Pye, Al Alford,
etc on
the
> Y2K forum. After reading Pye's book, Everything You Know is Wrong,
I am
> reluctant to defend evolution, but would hate for anyone to think I
believed
> in creationism. So I just stay out of the fight. Defending
Rationalism to
> morons is just too much trouble.
> xxxx
p.s.
Chris, if you have to lump me in with the apes I'll be an Orangutan :)
-- Andy (2000EOD@prodigy.net), August 26, 1999.
Why Brian, surely you aren't implying I'm a liberal women-are-equal-
to men sort of gal, now are you? Hardly! Just look at the differences
between the two sexes emotionally. A woman would have never made that
mistake.
:)
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Tim the Y2k Nut and Brian, together you made very good observations
relevant to this whole can of worm loopy debate. So, I will concede
this for you 2 only (everyone else please close your eyes.)
I am but a pixel to you and a spec of dust in this universe, and I
know as much as a spec of dust, but I assume I know more than my dusty
ancestors. That said, if we disregard the parsing of the term "god"
(capitalized or not, it's meaning etc.) there was a begining, and
(again disregard word-parsing) something started it. Name that
something what you wish. In that sense, I am an Atheist.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
My wife says, "When god created Man, She was just kidding."
I then remind her that Man created God in his own image.
-- John F. (tinfoil hats @nd colanders.com), August 26, 1999.
Andy! I've always found Orangutans so endearing, no wonder! ;-)
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
"god" (capitalized or not, it's meaning etc.) there was a
begining, and (again disregard word-parsing) something started
it. Name that something what you wish. In that sense, I am an
Atheist.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
Cris
Thanks for the plug.
One of the problems is whether there was a "beginning" or if we are
part of a "bootstrap" continuim in which case there is no beginning or
end only finite and infinite. Looking at the finite is looking at us
:o) looking at the infinite is looking at the great mystery.
Actually either way one can look for the universal "code" and wonder
how the "code" was implimented. (Just trying to bring this on topic :o)
Of course there is the infinite universe train of thought but that is
just to much mental gymnastics.
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Oh s**t sorry about getting your name wrong Chris
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 26, 1999.
"One of the problems is whether there was a "beginning" or if we are
part of a "bootstrap" continuim in which case
there is no beginning or end only finite and infinite. Looking at
the finite is looking at us :o) looking at the infinite is
looking at the great mystery."
Exactly. Hence why I said earlier why I had to brake away from the
loop. Too much wasted mental exercise of which I can put to better use
;-)
Yes my name has a Christian origin and thanks for respecting it's
spelling, my mother gave it to me and I cherish it.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
Response to Why can't people "Get It" about Y2K? Less than 44% even believe in Evolution. No wonder denial is so high.
IF I May, I'd like to congratulate one and all on a superb (what--24 hours?) performance: this thread (and many others, note to Mr. Yourdon) should be published (it is, Spidey, on the internet, duh). Well, you know what I mean (paper afficianado from way back). As far as the topic: always suspect Orwell's
smelly little orthodoxies of the age.'
-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), August 26, 1999.
Lord Buddha knew what he was talking about when he recommended people
not waste their energy worrying about metaphysical matters.say on
track with the 4 noble truths!!1.)suffering 2.)cause of suffering 3.)
removal of suffering 4.)the path that leads to the cessation of
suffering.why get bent outta shape over monkeys?
-- zoobie (zoobiezoob@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.
Some quick points:1)All of the sciences that deal with the study of
the past (Anthropology, Archeology, Paleontology, etc.) are in a
constant state of flux, as new evidence is discovered.
2)It takes a
lot, to make a fossil. If variables are not just right, no evidence
will remain of that creatures or plants existence. Furthermore,
evidence can get buried prtty deep, by geological processes. Missing
"missing links" to not prove your argument to be false, they merely
weaken your case.
3) If you search long enough, you can find someone
who will back up your argument, no matter what stance you come from.
You have to look at what the overwhelming majority of research is
saying. Creationists may have managed to raise some interesting
anomalies and inconsistencies in evolution theory, but they've hardly
shaken it loose from it's foundations.
4)No one EVER said we
evolved from monkeys or apes. Never. Not once. Listen carefully. It
was never said. What is and always has been said, by evolutionists, is
that apes, monkeys and humans descended from a common ancestor.
Anyone who says, "I DID NOT DESCEND FROM A MONKEY!", has never really
read up on evolutionist theory.
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my.Deja.com), August 26, 1999.
Thanks Gayla for the laugh.
-- BB (peace2u@bellatlantic.net), August 26, 1999.
Bokonon:
I'm somewhat encouraged that everyone here who doesn't accept
evolution seems to have no inkling of what evolution actually is. The
"principles of evolution" mentioned here are absurd, and nobody has
ever put any of them forward seriously. What's encouraging, then, is
that ignorance can be cured, while stupidity is forever. And if
there's anything that the creationists demonstrate above all else,
it's ignorance. Not stupidity, ignorance. Curable with knowledge.
Coprolith also raises a good point -- our taxonomy is for convenience
only. Taxonomy can be extremely useful, but we must always remember
that it is an arbitrary invention, not necessarily reflecting
anything inherent in the things we classify. Nature tends to present
continua, and we tend to draw lines and make boxes that don't exist
in reality. So how far apart to A and B need to be before they are
separate species? Well, we make a useful distinction, but later in
it's less useful, or we find exceptions that just don't fit, and we
compromise and fudge. Nature doesn't fit pigeonholes.
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 26, 1999.
Andy, thanks for being such a fine representative of all who would
deny the obvious. Now I know why you're having trouble here:
you've had 50 years or so to get your act together and you've
learnt
NOTHING.. other than as George would say is "have a way with
words" - not
fooling anyone flint, anyone with half a brain
So at least we know that you possess HALF a brain. How 'bout you,
kingy? Maybe one fourth?
Al
-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 26, 1999.
Me being the big hypocrite that I am, let me throw in a suggestion,
one that was briskly ignored when Stan Farnya tried to toss it in.
This Creation/Evolution stuff is dividing lots of us when it doesn't
need to. If you want to see more of these old arguments rehashed time
and time again, I suggest you point your dejanews server to
talk.origins.
Hey, I tried to convince some of you my point of view. But I am not
offended that no one cares to adopt it as their own. I simply like
hearing myself pontificate through the hallowed, reverberating halls
of cyberspace, and that is enjoyment enough! Woowee!!!
But seriously, let's all remember that personal insults only serve to
raise collective blood pressure. It's one thing to have a flame war
about some crazy y2k issue, but this stuff really isn't even on topic.
As for all you creationists out there who interpret Genesis literally,
it goes without saying that you're free to think whatever the heck
makes you happy. At the end of the day it really doesn't matter.
-- coprolith (coprolith@rocketship.com), August 26, 1999.
Thanks coprolith. You're right. Of course, on one's *last* day.....it
might. :o)
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Flint, you used the phrase, "accept evolution". I think that is very appropriate, because to actually believe it based on how little there is in the way of actual evidence, you have got to have faith. A LOT of faith.
And note that I have never said that I personally am convinced one way or the other. I stick to my position that evolution, like creation, is a THEORY not a "fact", and that there exists evidence both for and against both. (But I really do like the idea of a very muddy Garden of Eden. Not that you have to have a G of E to be a creationist.)
Bonehead and Bonkerson, you two are really getting annoying.
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
KOS:
I really tire of trying to tell you that theories are attempts to
explain facts. Theories are NOT some kind of "doubtful facts", as you
seem to think. Facts and theories are different KINDS of things. If a
theory is proved true beyond any shadow of doubt, it is STILL a
theory. It has simply been proven to be a TRUE theory. A theory never
can become a fact. Facts are facts, they are raw data. Theories are
explanations. A rock is a fact. An explanation of how the rock formed
is a theory. We can WATCH the rock form, establishing the truth of
that theory. It is still a theory. The rock is still a fact. See yet?
As for the "little bit" of evidence for evolution, are you kidding?
Armies of scientists have been studying evolution for at least the
last 150 years, filling entire libraries. If you wanted to be a
scientiest in an evolutionary field today, you'd have to pick some
small subfield of evolution, since the theory, and the evidence on
which it's based, is far too vast for any single individual to begin
to comprehend in a lifetime. You might want to visit such a library
-- there are several. You will find the evidence supporting various
theories explaining evolution absolutely overwhelming. The body of
facts is truly massive. Your own ignorance may be equally vast (and
must be, if you're unaware of all this), but the facts remain
mountainous, despite your admitted ignorance. But please, don't try
to use your obvious ignorance as an argument against evolution. You
only look stupid when you do that. Kind of like saying you've never
met a Chinese person, therefore there is no China and no people live
there! That might satisfy you, but so what?
-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), August 26, 1999.
EXCUSE me Flint. I've been given the impression that *YOU* have said,
"I've never met God, therefore there is no God."
My tongue is bleeding, so I will refrain from pointing out your big-
brained stupidity. Some people simply are unable to function without
facts in their pants.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
hear hear coprolith! I declare, as the spec of dust and pixel that I
am, that this one quote here is THE truth on this thread:
" At the end of the day it really doesn't matter." coprolith (c) 1999
And Flint, you had some real good wisdom too up there: "Not stupidity,
ignorance. Curable
with knowledge."
so hear hear for Flint! This second quote is THE supporting truth to
the first.
We all should go back to y2k cuz that's happening now. We can come
back to eternity after the roll-over. My house. BYOB.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 26, 1999.
In addition Flint, to save time and another essay from you, don't
bother pointing me to websites and libraries containing 'mounds' of
evidence that China does in fact exist. I would be forced to point
out the mounds of information about evolution and suggest that God
most obviously exists.
To each their own, oh master of spoon depth.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Chris, by all means you and your "knowledgable" little gathering can
most certainly BYOB and then you may sit on them and rotate.
In other words FO.
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 26, 1999.
Has anyone on either side of this argument learned anything that might
have changed his mind? I hope so.
I learned ONE thing. It changed my mind about Will Continue, not about
evolution/creation. WC says:
Just for the record, I believe there is a God who created the
whole process and has watched as it
evolved. I doubt he's very impressed.
-- Will continue
Thanks for telling us your basic religious belief, WC. I'm
flabbergasted to learn that you are the first deist besides myself to
admit it on this forum. We should start a club. Or a new church
perhaps.
Al
-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 26, 1999.
Flint expounds:
>>As for the "little bit" of evidence for evolution, are you kidding? Armies of scientists have been studying evolution for at least the last 150 years, filling entire libraries. If you wanted to be a scientiest in an evolutionary field today, you'd have to pick some small subfield of evolution, since the theory, and the evidence on which it's based, is far too vast for any single individual to begin to comprehend in a lifetime.<<
The pseudo-scientific "community" of evolutionists over the past 150 years is most notorious for outright fraud, pure and simple. Yet Flint, who questions everything, chooses to swallow the "theory" hook, line and sinker, going so far as to state, with absolutely *no* supporting evidence, that evolution is a FACT. Not just a fact; a FACT. My, how convincing! Not. What you, Flint, have proven by your own words is that you *believe* in evolution, you *believe* the pronouncements of strangers you've never met, who's veracity you cannot verify, you *believe* in a "mountain of evidence" that is so vast you cannot comprehend it all. It is a preposterous faith compelling only because you dare not contemplate the alternative.
-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 26, 1999.
When you die and leave your body, you will enter eternity.
Then you will experience either ecstasy or horror forever.
-- Randolph (dinosaur@williams-net.com), August 27, 1999.
Will
Chris may not want to talk about the problem and possibly have a beer
over the fire and listen to music but I have to say that your reaction
is way over the top.
My belief unshakeable that there is a higher order (God if you please)
and that evolution is a universal principle. But more important
everyone has the right to their own views without having others cut
them down totally.
While I can't wax poetic about evolution as it conserns biology I have
some small amount of understanding of the evolution of our mental,
spiritual atributes. In some manner this is reflected in my interest in
Y2K as crisis points in time often insigate profound changes that
contribute to "evolutionary" developement. While such a thing is not
expected during Y2K we really never know. My interest is in seeing if
humans will grow up and mature as a group if confronted by a difficult
challange. Right now I see humans in a group more like teenagers doing
their power trips and competitive self distruction. Unfortunately your
responces only confirms how far we have to go.
Darwin actually had it wrong, it is not the strong that survive but
those that can bend and flex with ongoing changes. The strong and
secure can't change, when presented with a opposing force they can't
bend they can only break. Cooperation is the secret.
-- Brian (imager@home.com), August 27, 1999.
If we humans were created by God, I cannot say that I am very
impressed by his work.
-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), August 27, 1999.
Ah, Uncle Dee, glad to see you posting!
A short comment deserves a short response:
What you see ain't what God originally created.
-- Elbow Grease (LBO Grise@aol.com), August 27, 1999.
So this is why the server has been so busy lately!
FOCUS PEOPLE!
September is almost here.
-- nothere nother (notherethere@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.
WC, you're absolutely right. Religion and booze don't mix.
I'll go FO right now, much more fun. Try it yourself for a shill,
you'll like it, promise.
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 27, 1999.
Sorry Brian, I'm still trying to grow up too, but I don't WANNA!
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 27, 1999.
A man is trying to understand the nature of God and asked him: "God,
how long is a million years to you?"
God answered: "A million years is like a minute."
Then the man asked: "God, how much is a million dollars to you?"
And God replied: "A million dollars is like a penny."
Finally the man asked: "God, could you give me a penny?"
And God says: "In a minute."
-- J (jart5@bellsouth.net), August 27, 1999.
Essays from Charles Colson (http://www.breakpoint.org)
Even today people think Einstein proved the maxim "Everything is
relative." Yet Einstein himself said his theory had nothing to do
with relativism. In fact, he preferred to call it "invariance
theory," because it showed that physical laws do not vary across
reference frames.
As Nancy Pearcey and Charles Thaxton explain in their book "The Soul
of Science," an easy way to understand Einstein is to consider a
simpler form of relativity proposed centuries earlier by Galileo.
Imagine a ship traveling 10 miles per hour, with the captain
strolling along the deck in the same direction. Relative to a person
sitting in a deck chair, the captain is walking, say, 3 miles per
hour. But relative to someone sitting on the shore, the captain is
moving 13 miles per hour, because you add in the speed of the ship.
So how fast is the captain really moving-3 miles per hour or 13? It
all depends on your frame of reference. For a measurement from the
shore, you add in the speed of the ship. For a measurement from the
deck, you subtract the speed of the ship.
This was Galileo's theory of relativity. It shows how the laws of
motion apply across different reference frames.
Einstein's relativity theory merely updated Galileo to take into
account the laws of electromagnetismsuch as the speed of light.
Einstein demonstrated that these laws likewise remain valid across
all reference frames.
It's true that in the process he discarded Newton's absolute space
and time, ending up with bizarre notions like curved space and time
slowing down. We've all heard the Twin Paradox, where a baby goes up
in a space ship and 70 years later is still a child, while his twin
brother back on Earth has become an old man. Yet these bizarre
notions are all simply mathematical deductions from the assumption
that the laws of electromagnetism remain constant across all
reference frames.
It's all perfectly mathematical. There is nothing in relativity to
support relativism.
Einstein's theory is a vivid example of the way scientific theories
are often misused to assault Christian faith and morals.
Everything is not relative. And we need to stand against the
hijacking of science to promote a destructive philosophical agenda.
************************************************
Weird Science?
What Creationists Really Want
In a recent cover story, Time magazine told the story of the Cambrian
explosion, when virtually all the blueprints for animal life burst
into being. During the Cambrian period, the anatomical designs for
animal life suddenly appeared within what amounts to an instant in
geological time. As one paleontologist put it, "there . . . seems to
be a non-Darwinian kind of evolution that functions over extremely
short time periods--and that's where all the action is."
But don't expect to see your kids learning about the Cambrian
explosion anytime soon. This crucial stage in life's history has in
effect been censored from public school classrooms.
Why is that? Perhaps it's because the sudden appearance of vast
biological diversity within an instant of geological time directly
contradicts Darwin's theory of slow, gradual change.
Problems with Darwinism are debated freely in professional journals
and even in Time magazine. But in the classroom, biology is sanitized
of any facts contrary to Darwinist assumptions. The scientific
establishment is committed to the philosophy of naturalism--the
notion that natural causes alone explain everything that exists--and
Darwin's naturalistic mechanism for evolution provides crucial
support for that philosophy....The creation controversy signals that
parents want students exposed to all the facts--including those
hostile to Darwinism and favorable to alternatives . . . such as
design theory.
Today, that evidence includes not only the Cambrian explosion but
also the irreducible complexity of living things, which precludes
slow, step-by-step formation. Mike Behe, the author of Darwin's Black
Box, argues that complex structures such as proteins cannot be
assembled piecemeal, with gradual improvement of function. Instead,
like a mousetrap, all the parts--catch, spring, hammer, and so forth--
must be assembled simultaneously or the protein doesn't work.
The Supreme Court has ruled against teaching creation. But many
Americans are convinced that the idea of a mind or intelligence
responsible for living things is neither more nor less religious than
the insistence of Darwinists that no mind is responsible.
**************************************************
Doubting Darwin
.....In a word, Darwinism entails the philosophy of naturalism. The
upshot is that there is no God and therefore no ultimate purpose in
life. As Provine puts it, evolution operates by mindless, mechanistic
principles: It is"a totally purposeless, uncaring process." .....But
if you ask about the evidence for the Darwinist worldview, it is
surprisingly meager. For example, in a New York Times article,
Jonathan Weiner claims he saw evolution in progress in the Galapagos
Islands, home of Darwin's famous finches. Weiner observed that the
finches' beaks grew larger in dry seasons, when the seeds they eat
are tough and hard; but after a rainy season, when tiny seeds became
available once more, the finches' beaks grew smaller again.
I witnessed evolution in action, Weiner writes.
But what he really witnessed was the exact opposite of evolution.As
Phillip Johnson explains in Reason in the Balance, a change in beak
size is a minor adaptation that allows the finches to adapt and
survive:In other words, it allows them to stay finches. It does not
prove that they're capable of evolving into a different species of
bird, and it certainly does not prove that finches evolved from some
other organism in the first place.
When Darwinists claim that evolution is an observed fact, invariably
they're referring to minor adaptations like the finch beaks. And on
this flimsy basis they urge us to abandon belief in a Creator and
take a leap of faith to a grand metaphysical story called naturalism.
They insist that we accept a grim vision of a universe with no
ultimate meaning or purpose.
If Darwinism were true scientifically, then we'd all have to accept
its dark implications. But Darwinism is not even good science. You
and I need to fight the hold it has on our culture, not only in the
science classroom but in every area of life.
*****************************************************
Does Mother Nature Tell?:
The Age of the Earth
April 28, 1997
No. 70428
When Richard Milton published a book on Darwinism, leading Darwinist
Richard Dawkins called it loony. He dismissed Milton as a harmless
fruitcake who needs psychiatric help.
This is scarcely the language of scientific debate. Why did the book
provoke such a furious response? Miltons book is called The Facts of
Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism. Its theme is that science
needs to evolve beyond evolutionand it offers a collection of
anomalies that undercut evolutionary theory.
Consider the age of the earth. The most common method of dating rocks
uses radioactive decay. But the method doesn't always work. When
scientists at the Hawaiian Institute of Geophysics tested volcanic
lava, they got ages ranging up to three billion years old. But the
lava was from an eruption that happened only 200 years ago.
Here's another anomaly. The principal rocks of the earth's crust are
sedimentary rocks, so-called because they are formed from sediment
like sand and silt. Evolutionists believe each rock layer represents
several million years.
ROCK STRATA CONTAINING FOSSILS MUST HAVE FORMED QUICKLY
. But scientists often find fossils shooting straight up through
several layers of rock. Fossilized trees are found standing upright,
cutting through 40 feet of rock.
If it really took millions of years for the sediment to be laid down,
the trees would have rotted away long before they could fossilize.
But there's no sign of decay. Each tree must have been covered all at
once40 feet of sediment laid down all at one time.
That dramatically collapses the standard time table.
Another puzzle is huge fossil "graveyards" where thousands of fossils
are found all jumbled together. This means the animals were swept up
in some violent flood and deposited all at one time. Once again,
evidence that huge sections of rock formed quickly.
Actually, the most pervasive testimony of a young earth is that
fossils exist at all. You see, when an animal dies in the wild, it is
devoured by scavengers and decayed by bacteria within days. It
becomes a fossil only in those rare cases when it is covered up by
sediment quickly.
That means any rock strata containing fossils must have formed
quickly.
So don't be intimidated when your children bring home schoolbooks
talking about millions of years. Just turn to the section dealing
with fossils and show them that fossils have to be formed quickly.
That one simple fact contradicts the vast ages ascribed to large
segments of the geological record.
Of course, the age of the earth is not as important for creation as
it is for evolution. The important thing is that God created the
world, not when He created it. Christians can be open-minded about
the question of age and follow the evidence wherever it leads.
But evolution absolutely requires an ancient earth. Evolution
pictures a world where tiny changes add up gradually, as one-celled
organisms slowly evolve into fish and fowl and guinea pigs. Darwin
once wrote that his theory depends on "incomprehensibly vast" periods
of time.
But did those vast periods of time really happen? There are enough
puzzles in the rocks to make us doubt it.
******************************************************
Artificial Life:
Clues to the Origin of Life
April 24, 1997
No. 70424
In the beginning was the Original Replicant, floating in a test tube.
Then came the Mutants, deformed by harsh ultraviolet rays. They
interacted with the Original Replicants to form Hybrids.
No, this is not a science fiction novel; it's a description of an
experiment conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The characters in the story are artificial molecules designed by
chemists in the latest attempt to solve the mystery of life's origin.
It was back in the 1960s that we first began to read headlines
claiming that scientists were about to conjure up life in a test
tube. Biochemists discovered they could mix ammonia, methane, and
water, zap it with an electric spark, and create amino acids, the
building blocks of proteins.
The scientific community was euphoric. No one had ever dreamed of
creating even the simplest building blocks of life before.
But then things ground to a halt. The amino acids never did form
proteins or evolve into a living cell. And critics charged that even
the amino acids were obtained only by "cheating"by rigging the
experiment.
LIFE IN A TEST TUBE? THE EXPERIMENTS ARE RIGGED"
You see, origin-of-life experiments are supposed to be reenactments
of what could have happened in a warm pond on the early earth. The
most realistic experiment would be pouring various chemicals into
water and mixing them up. But no researcher ever does that, because
it doesn't yield anything.
Instead, scientists tinker with the experiment at several points.
For example, in a real pond, there would be all sorts of chemical
reactionsmany of them canceling out the reactions the scientist
needs. So what does he do? He starts with pure ingredients.
That's strike number one. In a natural setting like the early earth,
there is no way to purify the starting materials to get the results
you want.
Origin-of-life experiments often use ultraviolet light to simulate
sunlight. But certain wavelengths of light destroy amino acids. So
what does the researcher do? He screens them out.
Strike number two. In a natural setting you have to deal with real
sunlightin all its wavelengths.
The amino acids formed in these experiments are delicate; they easily
break down into the chemicals that make them up. So what does the
researcher do? He rigs a trap to remove them from the reaction site
as soon as they form, to protect them from disintegration.
Strike number three. Nature doesn't come equipped with protective
traps. Any amino acids that form in nature quickly disintegrate.
The problems are so great that some scientists have given up
imitating real life and are trying their hand at creating artificial
life: man-made Replicants and Mutants, like the experiments at MIT.
But even the most successful experiments tell us nothing about what
can happen in nature. They tell us only what can happen when
brilliant scientists direct and manipulate conditions.
So try turning the tables on your friends who are evolutionists. The
experiments don't prove life can arise spontaneously in nature. On
the contrary, they give experimental evidence that life can be
created only by an intelligent agent directing and controlling the
process.
And isn't that what we Christians have been saying all along?
-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 27, 1999.
Yes Brian. I'm sure that's exactly what our 'knowledgable' friend Mr.
Flint was suggesting in his willingness to 'compromise and bend' when
he stated, "Not stupidity, ignorance. Curable with knowledge."
For Chris to applaude that 'ignorant' statement, was to *request*
reaction. My pleasure.
You may all NOW continue insulting and belittling people of faith,
patting yourselves upon each others backs and displaying your large
craniums up and down the runway of knowledge. After all, that WAS the
original intent of this thread to begin with, was it not?
Carry on...........
-- Will continue (farming@home.com), August 27, 1999.
Curable with knowledge?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4055.asp
A shrinking date for Eve
Carl Wieland
First published in:
Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 12(1):13, 998
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
Most creationists will have by now heard of the mitochondrial Eve
hypothesis, the finding that all modern humans can be traced back to
one woman. Some recent findings on when Eve is supposed to have
lived are very encouraging for creationists. But first we should
review a few things, and hopefully sweep away some common
misunderstandings.
Evolutionists do not claim, nor can it be fairly stated, that this
evidence proves that there was only one woman alive at any point in
the past. Holders to the Eve theory certainly insist that all
modern humans are indeed descended from one woman. However, they
believe that there were other women present at the time, and that any
of these other women could have contributed DNA information to our
present gene pool of humanity. How does this apparent contradiction
come about?
The answer lies in the fact that while we all inherit our usual
complement of (nuclear) DNA from both mother and father, we only
inherit mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from our mother. Think of it like a
surname, only related to the opposite sex. In our society, we inherit
our surname only from our father. A surname can become extinct
without implying that all the people in a line have died out all it
takes is for there to be only female descendants at any level.
In the same way, if a line of descent in a human population has only
males at one point, then that line dies out as far as its
mitochondrial signature is concerned i.e., nuclear DNA is still
passed on, but not mtDNA. To make it easier to understand, lets
return to the surname analogy (then later just substitute females for
males). Imagine that an island is colonised by four couples, each
with the first names Harry and Sally, but with four different
surnames: Smith, Jones, Brown and White. In due course the population
grows, with each generation marrying only among any of the other
surnames available. It is very easy to set up a simple computer
simulation to show how readily a surname can die out with a line
ending in only daughters. In due course, all the people on that
island could end up with one surname only say Smith. (In fact, this
is what happened on Pitcairn Island, inhabited by the descendants of
the Bounty mutineers all ended up with the same surname after a few
generations.) This is only probable where there is only a small
number of surnames initially, i.e., a small original population; if
the number of surnames is too large, it becomes very improbable for
it to narrow down to only one.
In one sense it could be said that Harry Smith is the father of
all on the island. Yet this does not imply that Harry Jones, for
example, is not the ancestor of any of them. Harry Jones could very
well have contributed nuclear DNA to any of todays islanders,
without being their surname ancestor.
Lets say you are a researcher investigating this particular island,
without the benefit of any written records. You notice that all
people on the island today are named Smith. Now this could be for two
reasons:
Because there really was only one couple that colonised the island in
the beginning, called Smith, or
There was only a small number of surnames on the islands to begin
with, and the other surnames became extinct.
Returning to the Eve debate, it is clear from the above example (by
just swapping the sexes around) that the evidence from mtDNA, which
has suggested that all modern humans come from one woman, can mean
one of two things.
There really was only one couple in the beginning i.e,
mitochondrial Eve could be the real (biblical) Eve, or:
All modern humans are descended from only a small population existing
at one time. The other mitochondrial lines (from the other females
living alongside the one whose mitochondrial surname is found in
all populations today) have become extinct whenever a line had no
female offspring. Mitochondrial Eve is the only one of the original
population in whose offspring there has been a continuous supply of
female descendants in each generation. Any of the other women living
alongside her could have contributed nuclear DNA to todays
populations, via their sons.
I trust the analogy is clear. The mitochondrial Eve data does not
force the belief that there was only one woman from whom we all
descended in other words, it doesnt prove the Bible but a very
important but it is most definitely consistent with it. In other
words, had there been more than one mitochondrial surname, it would
have been a severe challenge to the biblical scenario. And it was not
something that was expected by evolutionists. To explain it in their
scenario requires a small population of modern humans to arise in one
part of the world (archaic humans having already evolved and spread
across the globe), and from there, spread out to replace all the
other less-evolved humans, so that we all descend from that small
original population (the out-of-Africa or Noahs Ark theory of
human evolution).
The biblical creationist would conclude that the one woman suggested
by the mitochondrial data is almost certainly the real Eve.1
WHEN DID EVE LIVE?
Evolutionists, aware of the way in which the mitochondrial Eve
discovery could be seen to have vindicated the Bible, have long
countered by saying that their Eve lived far too long ago to be the
biblical Eve. How do they calculate this? The answer has to do with
why this scenario came about in the first place. MtDNA is known to be
much more transparent to selection than nuclear DNA. In other words,
there are many places where a genetic letter can be replaced with
another by way of a mutational copying mistake without causing any
problems to the organism. Comparisons between various groups of
people alive today can be made on the basis of the number of letters
which are different, having been substituted by mutation. Modern
humans were much closer to each other than standard evolutionary
theory had predicted, hence the out-of-Africa theory.
Evolutionists have guessed at when their mitochondrial Eve lived via
the idea of the molecular clock i.e., that there is a more or
less fixed rate of mutational substitutions per year in any
population. How do they know what this rate is in other words, how
is the molecular clock calibrated? By using evolutionary
assumptions about the timing of events based on their interpretation
of the fossil record. For example, if it is believed that humans and
baboons, for example, last shared a common ancestor x years ago,
and if the number of differences between baboon and human mtDNA is y,
then the substitution rate per year is y/x. In this way, estimates of
when Eve lived have varied from as low as 70,000 to 800,000 years
ago, more commonly in the range 200-250,000 years.
It has recently been claimed that Neandertals were not direct human
ancestors, but a different species in fact. This claim has been made
on the basis of the number of substitutional differences in one
stretch of mtDNA between that extracted from the one Neandertal ever
tested and the average of todays populations. In a consistent
biblical model, there would be no proto-humans having music,
jewellery, trade, clothing, shelter, sophisticated hunting weapons
and the like. If he/she acts in so many respects like a human,
he/she is a human and thus a descendant of Adam. Neandertals (some
of whose physical traits can be found in some European populations)
were not a different species (or a spiritless race not descended from
Adam, as Rossists proclaim) but were post-Flood humans, representing
a subset of the original gene pool broken up at Babel.
Creationists have correctly countered both Eves age and the
Neandertal assertions by saying that the molecular clock calibrations
are way off.2 Since, for example, the creationists (true) Eve lived
only a few thousand years ago, the mutational substitutions in mtDNA
must have happened at a much faster rate than assumed by
evolutionists to date.
GOOD NEWS
In fact, a number of recent studies on living populations have indeed
come up with results which indicate a much higher rate of mutation in
human mtDNA.3,4
Although not all studies to date have found the same high rate, at
least two studies, looking directly at substitutions occurring today,
have found rates as much as 20 times higher than previously assumed.5
Studies on the bones of the last Tsar of Russia also showed that he,
along with 1020 % of the population, actually had at least 2 types
of mtDNA, a condition called heteroplasmy, also caused by
mutations.3 This, too, throws off the molecular clock calibrations.
According to one review of the data, these recent results would mean
that mitochondrial Eve lived about 6500 years ago a figure clearly
incompatible with current theories on human origins. Even if the last
common mitochondrial ancestor is younger than the last common real
ancestor, it remains enigmatic how the known distribution of human
populations and genes could have arisen in the past few thousand
years.4
The review in Sciences Research News goes still further about
Eves date, saying that using the new clock, she would be a mere
6000 years old. The article says about one of the teams of
scientists (the Parsons team5) that evolutionary studies led them to
expect about one mutation in 600 generations they were "stunned" to
find 10 base-pair changes, which gave them a rate of one mutation
every 40 generations.4
Evolutionists have tried to evade the force of these results by
countering that the high mutation rate only occurs in certain
stretches of DNA called hot spots and/or that the high (observed)
rate causes back mutations which erase the effects of this high
rate. Therefore, conveniently, the rate is assumed to be high over a
short timespan, but effectively low over a long timespan. However,
this is special pleading to get out of a difficulty, and the burden
of proof is on evolutionists to sustain the vast ages for Eve in
the face of these documented, modern-day mutation rates. These are
indeed encouraging results for creationists. In summary:
The mitochondrial Eve findings were, in the first instance, in line
with biblically-based expectations; while not proving the biblical
Eve, they were consistent with her reality, and were not predicted by
evolutionary theory.
The dates assigned to mitochondrial Eve were said by evolutionists to
rule out the biblical Eve. But these dates were based upon molecular
clock assumptions, which were calibrated by evolutionary beliefs
about when certain evolutionary events occurred, supposedly millions
of years ago.
When these assumed rates were checked out against the real world,
preliminary results indicate that the mitochondrial molecular clock
is ticking at a much faster rate than evolutionists believed
possible. If correct, it means that mitochondrial Eve lived 6,000 to
6,500 years ago, right in the ballpark for the true mother of all
living (Genesis 3:20).
These real-time findings also seriously weaken the case from
mitochondrial DNA which argued (erroneously) that Neandertals were
not true humans.
-- Mumsie (Shezdremn@aol.com), August 27, 1999.
WC, it seems this time YOU have taken my remarks (the coprolith/flint
post) too personaly. Does that make us both hot tempered chicks flying
off the handle? I think it does. What I entended to do up there is to
highlight in a humorous way 2 deadpan truths, which had nothing to do
with religion. You could have said the quote Flint said and I would
have highlighted it the same. It is FUTIL and RIDICULOUS to argue over
such fundamentaly different convictions in a forum like this. Do you
disagree with that?
I enjoy reading your observations and contributions on Y2K. Can we
just agree to disagree on this OT topic and move on?
-- Chris (%$^&^@pond.com), August 27, 1999.
Will Continue
Just for the record, I believe there is a God who created the
whole process and
has watched as it evolved. I doubt he's very impressed.
-- Will continue
Thanks for telling us your basic religious belief, WC. I'm
flabbergasted to learn
that you are the first deist besides myself to admit it on this
forum. We should
start a club. Or a new church perhaps.
Al
WC, we could start a Deist Church sponsored y2k preparedness
group.Want to do it here in Oregon, or electronically? I can't travel
to Kansas right now, hurt my back and can't get bent into an airline
seat.
-- Al K. Lloyd (al@ready.now), August 27, 1999.
Oh, to see Will continue and Chris, their sleek bodies oiled, battling it out in the superb and serene beauty of the Garden of Eden!
Now, thats how I spell Big Bang....
-- King of Spain (madrid@aol.com), August 27, 1999.
KoS,You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that I would
be bothered to discover that you find me annoying. Far from it.
Irritating little suck-ups, like you, who ask the same inane question
over and over and over again (as in "Do you like to
mudwrestle?"), in the interest of being cutesy, are among my
favorite targets to harass.
-- Bokonon (bok0non@my-Deja.com), August 27, 1999.
How do we know Adam wasn't black?
Ever try to take a rib from a black man?
-- ....... (....@....ha), August 27, 1999.
Personally I have no theological convictions for or against; either
way works fine for my worldview. And I play around with writing
little computer programs that use evolution to solve problems. It
works quite well, as long as there's a gradual approach to the
solution. If it's an all-or-nothing problem (eg. finding a decryption
key) it doesn't work at all.
This is the key problem currently in evolutionary theory. A lot of
biochemical structures won't work at all unless they are complete.
Take out a small part and either they will confer no advantage, or in
many cases actually be deadly. At the biochemical level we can look
at the proteins, figure out how many bits of information it took to
create them, and calculate the odds. The odds of them occurring by
chance are astronomically small, even given four billion years of
evolution. Again, remember there is no gradual approach to these
structures, and therefore small random mutation and natural selection
doesn't help in getting there. They have to appear out of nowhere,
purely by chance. (for more info, see recent book by Michael Behe)
I don't think this necessarily mean there is no theory that can
explain their existense in naturalistic terms. I do think it means
that we don't have that theory yet. Being dogmatic about things won't
move us any closer to getting one.
-- Shimrod (shimrod@lycosmail.com), August 27, 1999.
I don't know if this will be placed right after the assertion that
I'm answering to, but someone mentioned the work of Michael Behe and
his idea of "irreducible complexity" where he asserts that some
organic systems can't be broken down any further - i.e., they need
all their parts to function. However, Behe is making a lethal error
by looking at the end result rather than the beginning, and he
forgets that what now is a system was probably once a collection of
different parts suited to other needs which came together. There are
no known "irreducibly complex" structures so far, which looks bad for
Behe's case. Behe also failed to publish through scientific peer-
review, which seems to show he must have been conscious of his
somewhat pseudoscientific proposal. While he IS a biochemist, he
seems to have made a mistake by allowing his personal prejudices
interfere with his scientific work.
-- Erin (EvolutionNActn@aol.com), March 13, 2002.
Moderation questions? read the FAQ