Gabriel
hotmail.com> wrote in
news:fvb054100qkjeh9ldm5om6bib64hqaq0gi@4ax.com:
> No, your version has two critical flaws:
> The two creatures were not observed evolving from each other,
> only *believed*, which you still haven't shown where they claim
> it is fact, not just believed.
As usual, you show your complete and total ignorance of modern genetic
science. It is, in fact, modern genetic science that demonstrates
conclusively that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Analysis of
the GULO gene alone is sufficient. This gene is defective across the
entire suborder. This includes old world monkeys and apes, including
humans. Tracing the damage demonstrates the same evolutionary hierarchy
that is derived from tracing other genes and from tracing morphological
changes found in the fossil record.
The version of this nonfunctional gene found in humans and chimps is
nearly identical. Some creationist liars have tried to pretend that the
nonfunctional version in guinea pigs is the same. This is simply a lie.
The creationist contention would seem to be that their (false) god
deliberately in separate acts, with malicious intent, placed the same
useless genes in chimps as in humans. Of course their theology has no
real answer as to what the purpose of this malicious act on the part of
their malicious false god was. Instead, we are instructed not to ask
them. Well, questioning your theology is not questioning God. You
people are very confused. You think that you collectively or
individually are God and that anyone who questions your fantasies about
theology is questioning God. What will you say when God questions your
theology and your fantasies about Him?
>
> And secondly, they are still both mosquitoes! That's adaptation,
> which we already know happens. Animals adapt to their
> environment. But you believe animals can become drastically
> different animals, rather than just adapting (like all animals
> having a common ancestor shows you believe this). Show where
> mosquitoes produced animals, over generations, that are clearly
> no longer mosquitoes, and you'd finally have something that now
> resembles your beliefs in evolutionism.
This is SO predictable.
You are still an ape. You are an ape adapted to living on grasslands.
Instead of a jungle. Initially, that meant walking erect. Instead of
knuckle walking. This permitted your ancestors to carry the tools and
weapons they made and the all-important baby. It also began a long
process whereby increased intelligence was more likely to succeed than
sheer stupidity. It is one thing to walk erect, but this puts a premium
on knowing when to duck.
Your family seems to have reverted to a period when it was sufficient to
sit out on a limb howling insults and gibbering curses at predators. At
least, in your case, the reversion is evident. You still bear the
anatomical differences from the other eggs with your behavior has almost
completely reverted. Your cult seems to actually encourage this kind of
reversion. There is a Darwinian reward for being willfully stupid. You
get money. You probably get sex. But don't even try to pretend that you
get any kind of relationship with the creator of the universe.
>
>:
>: Given that all we Christians have is faith that God exists with no
>: evidence, I hope that you're going to trash that, too.
>
> No, we have a belief in a religion just like you do. We have
> evidence that suggests our beliefs in God are true, much of it
> being the same evidence you think suggests your equally
> unobservable, unverifiable, untestable beliefs might be true. And
> since you reject God, you assume using the "argument from
> ignorance" that your beliefs must win by default.
So your belief in your religion is what causes you to lie about science?
Because if that is the case, I would strongly recommend you get a
different religion. The god you worship merits exorcism, not worship.
This is true of all gods who require, as an act of worship, either lies
or human sacrifices. The fact that your brain remains in your head does
not mean that you have not offered it as a sacrifice to your devil.
Evolution is not a religious belief. It is a scientific inference made
from mountains of physical evidence, most of which you neither understand
nor accept. But your uneducated, willfully ignorant opinion is
worthless. The only effect it has is to show just what a hypocrite you
are. It also gives the more militant among the atheists you deliberately
bait the chance to use YOU as a strawman for all Christians. Your father
the devil must be very proud of this result, since it is clearly what he
intended in the first place.
Just understand that he is a liar and that any reward he has promised you
in heaven is beyond his power to grant. He may be able, by tempting
them, to induce people to give you rewards in this life. But his power
over you in the next will either be absolute or nonexistent. The choice
is yours, and so far, you have chosen to grant him considerable power
over your soul in this life. If you do not retract those permissions,
that will result in him gaining infinite power over your soul in the
next. In the sacrament of baptism, you (or your godparents in your name)
are supposed to renounce the devil and all his pomps. You are supposed
to reiterate this renunciation at your confirmation. Apparently, you
have turned this on its head and chosen to follow the teachings of the
father of lies is mediated to you by the leaders of your Satanic cult.
And, listen up, Jr., I do not care what you pretend your cult is, when
your primary act of worship is to lie in God's name, then whatever
organization is inducing you to perform this act is both a cult and
Satanic, whatever sign it paints on the door.
>
>:
>: If you trash one thing because it is based upon faith then you must
>: also trash the other thing because it is based upon faith, too.
>:
>: To do otherwise would make you a hypocrite.
>:
>: >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culex_molestus
>: > "It is **thought** to have evolved from the overground species
>: > Culex pipiens in the last few decades"
>:
>: Wikipedia is a secondary source.
>
> Typical - now that you've been shown what contradicts your
> beliefs, you resort to "that's not science" or "that's a
> secondary source". I suggest you get it changed to fit your
> beliefs and see if it doesn't get voted down - because I
> guarantee you if they did evolve from each other, there are
> thousands of people that would give their right eye to put that
> critical piece of information onto wikipedia for the whole world
> to see.
As you no doubt know, scientists are very guarded when it comes to
stating absolutes. "It is thought," does not imply "it is merely
guessed." And when you imply that it does, you are deliberately and
maliciously bearing false witness AGAIN.
You should also know, that Wikipedia is a user-written online
encyclopedia. The articles found their range from the sublime to the
ridiculous, and can ultimately be guaranteed to represent only the
opinions of their authors. That does not mean there is no good material
there, just that one must follow the references given with the material
there, in order to judge its validity.
It should be relatively easy, should the resources for it exist, and
should it be deemed seriously necessary, to demonstrate conclusively
which mosquito species this one is derived from.
I read some interesting material about some experiments with E. coli. In
that lab, they hit separated 12 populations of the bacterium and allowed
them to grow continuously for several years. An interesting thing
happened. One of the 12 populations developed the ability to metabolize
citrates. And, because of samples of each of the 12 populations had been
frozen and stored every 500 generations, it was possible to show that
something occurred in the population that later developed the ability to
metabolize citrates at about generation 25,000. Whatever this was, and
enabled that population (and only that population) to develop the trait.
This was experimentally tested, subsequent to the trait appearing.
Of course, being spiritually blind when it comes to evolution, you will
most likely reject this as having anything to do with the possibility
that your ancestors were the same ancestors that gave rise to the chimp
in the zoo. Most humans and chimps are, however, inherently more honest
than you. Perhaps there is some selection pressure for dishonesty in
your ancestry.
>
> And please realize - no one said animals cannot adapt - we know
> they adapt. Dogs adapt and remain dogs. Mosquitoes adapt and
> remain mosquitoes. So even if it's completely true that pipiens
> came from molestus, it only shows what we already know: that
> mosquitoes adapted but remained mosquitoes, without the addition
> of new information to become something that is clearly no longer
> a mosquito at all, which is what you believe could take place but
> is not observable, testable or verifiable.
Our ancestors adapted to a changing climate. That is to say, those of
them who inherited the hip deformity that made walking erect more
comfortable, were more readily able to exploit the emerging environment
of grassy plains than their tree-swinging cousins. This is not just
conjecture. The fossil record demonstrates that this climate change took
place. And it also demonstrates that this is the time when the first
erect walking apes appear.
> Show populations of mosquitoes producing, over generations,
> animals that are clearly no longer mosquitoes at all, and now
> you'll have a first observation of what you belief in:
> evolutionism.
Still peddling this lie. I see. Evolution doesn't work the way you say
it works. It works the way it works. That is to say, the descendents of
modern mosquitoes will always be, in the scientific cladistic sense,
mosquitoes. Nobody except creationists (who are lying) is saying that
they are expected to turn into houseflies or any other non-mosquito
clade.
It is so easy to set up straw men like this and then knock them down.
But it depends on a fundamental deception on your part. At deception
that I have laid out for you time and again at the deception that you
insist on it repeating over and over again. Therefore, I conclude that
you are a willing follower of the father of lies. That means we can
trust nothing that you say. When you say you were a born-again
Christian, you are lying. When you say that you have studied something,
we have no reason to believe that you actually have. In fact all your
behavior leads us to the conclusion that the only thing you love is lying
about science. You love it beyond the salvation of your own soul. Since
that seems to be the case, I commend you to your god, or rather gods
(because your ego stands on the same level as your father in hell).
What you are teaching and what you are politically advocating is heresy.
It is not heresy, because you reject the science of evolution. Is heresy
because you reject the teachings of Jesus Christ, because you teach the
exact opposite, and because you misrepresent it as orthodox Christian
doctrine. That makes you heretical by definitions as old as the Church
herself.
Now, as I have repeatedly stated, you have a perfect right to be a
heretic in our society. But you have zero right to impose that heresy on
anyone else who doesn't care for it. When you incite politicians of low
character to an act unconstitutional legislation in order to promote your
heresy beyond the boundaries of your so-called church, then you are not
being politically or spiritually conservative. You are violating God's
commandment against using the power of the sword in this connection and
you are conspiring to violate the Constitution of the nation that
protects your right to be a heretic. In short, you people are neither
conservative nor Christian. What you are is a Satanic cult, masquerading
as Christianity, seeking to overthrow the democratic institutions of the
countries in which you reside. In short, you are dangerous, seditious
radicals.
>: If you want to prove a point you need
>: to use the primary sources. Did you even look at those sources
>: references by the Wikipedia article? Probably not, because then you
>: never have needed me to provide a cite that says the LUM won't
>: produce offspring with Culex pipiens (CP) - you would have already
>: known that.
>:
>: You'll note that bit you just quoted does not have a reference. The
>: part that you did not quote says that the LUM shows genetic drift and
>: references the very article I used to show you that the LUM does not
>: successfully mate with CP.
>:
>: Again, the data I *do* have trumps the data which you do *not* have.
>:
>: >
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
>: > "The insects are **believed** to be the descendants of mosquitoes
>: > which colonised the tunnels a hundred years ago when the Tube was
>: > being dug."
>:
>: This barely even qualifies as a secondhand source. It's copy of a
>: London Times article and the London Times is not peer-reviewed
>: academic journal, not a primary source. It is also well known that
>: science journalists rarely have a science education beyond high
>: school and often
>: make mistakes on basic science. This makes science article in news
>: papers a rather unreliable source.
>:
>: Also, you'll not that the London Times article is from as year older
>: than the paper by Byrne and Nichols from heredity. Again, data trumps
>: lack of data because the genetic analyses by Byrne and Nichols shows
>: that the LUM and CP are very closely related.
>:
>: > Also, please note this is one experiment, and they were only
>: > given one week. Given more time, and numerous tests, would the
>: > result have been the same would be the question to ask. Other
>: > sources indicate that mating is possible, it's just extremely
>: > difficult.
>:
>: >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culex_molestus
>: > "are extremely difficult to mate"
>:
>: Again, a secondary source which contained the primary source which
>: you wanted me to cite to prove inability of LUM and CP could not mate
>: successfully. You need to do your homework, Gabriel, because had you
>: done so you would not have needed me to make the cite. You woudl have
>: already known of it.
>:
>: >
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1998/Jul-Sep/msg00188.html
>: > "almost impossible to mate"
>:
>: Same as above. A science article in a newspaper which came out a year
>: before research paper was published does not trump that research
>: paper.
>:
>: You should have known that newspaper articles on science are not
>: definitive. At the very least you should have known that this
>: particular newspaper article article could not possibly have had all
>: the information. Yet another indication that you didn't do your
>: homework and ate simply pulling things out of thin air.
>:
>: > So in the end you just have a case of mosquitoes not mating with
>: > mosquitoes, having believed to evolve from each other.
>:
>: Only an unreasonable person would deny the genetic data showing the
>: relationship between LUM and CP. In order to throw out that data, you
>: must also deny the usefulness of DNA testing in paternity suits.
>:
>: > In the end, it's still a far cry from populations of animals that
>: > are clearly not [mosquitoes] producing, over generations
>: > (supposedly via mutations and/or accumulation of small changes)
>: > animals that are now [mosquitoes], which is still the point.
>:
>: Except, as I have pointed out numerous times, it was you who came up
>: with the diagnostic test of inability to interbreed
>: (<
http://groups.google.ca/group/free.christians/msg/409e9ac76166a9af>)
>: .
>:
>: The genetic evidence shows that LUM is descended from CP and
>: laboratory results show that the two will not interbreed. IOW, this
>: fits *your* definition of speciation.
>:
>: > : Note that bit "none of the crosses between surface males and
>: > : autogenous females resulted in any offspring".
>:
>: > : Culex pipiens into Culex molestus meets *your* diagnostic test of
>: > : inability to interbreed, as given by you in
>: > : <
http://groups.google.ca/group/free.christians/msg/409e9ac76166a9a
>: > : f>. None of your handwaving with erase thefact that the London
>: > : Underground Mosquito.
And we will go around and around forever and ever, because in addition to
arguing by lying, you have been taught to use the argumentum ad nauseam
fallacy. That fallacy consists of repeating the same fallacious argument
over and over again on the apparent theory that repetition will somehow
render the lies believable. Of course, given your demonstrated mental
incapacity, it's possible that you believe repetitive chanting of a
falsehood will render it actually true. In any case, it won't.
--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 1800667
