> On Jun 25, 5:37Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> If the theory of evolution is based upon some observables like,
>> mutation,
>
> ALL, as in ALL, mutations are loss of genetic info and almost always
> leads to a lower life.
Cite, please? I do not believe this is accurate. Please provide
scientific references.
> the Gene gnome project
The "Gene gnome project"???
Spell much? How do you expect us to take anything
you say seriously if you don't even look up how the project is
spelled?
> has found a bottleneck in the gene
> pool that dates back to roughly 6,000 yrs ago. Â Just about the
> time of Noah's universal flood.
That's flat *wrong*. The bottleneck was ~70,000 years ago, not
6,000. Stop parroting the [wrong] information your fundy handlers
spoonfeed you and fucking LOOK THINGS UP.
> cough! Â Theory. Â That is why, despite huge fundings and
> experiments in high energy physics, we've only managed
> to evolve from steady state, to big bang and now possibly
> moving onto some sort of string theory. Â Models and
> perhaps theories but nothing beyond that.
In science - nay, in *all* of academia, the word "theory" does NOT
mean "wild-ass guess scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin after
three beers." It means "a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon
that takes into account *all* the data currently known."
*Theories* explain *phenomena*. Something can be a fact and a theory
simultaneously. Ever hear of "music *theory*?" It's the explanation
of how the *fact* of music works. Ever hear of "germ *theory* of
disease"? It's the explanation of how germs, which are real, factual
things, cause diseases. Gravity is another thing that is both a fact
and a theory, as is electricity.
The theory of evolution explains the observed *fact* that life forms
evolve. Suck it up and deal.
>> he convicts
>> himself out of the gate. He must show that mutations and the strong
>> evidence for mutation rates is not possible or highly unlikely,
>
> What like the black and white moth fiasco which is still be taught as
> proof of beneficial genetic mutation  when it was all a hoax (lie).  I
> suppose you're going to bring up whale feet next.
Actually, the peppered moth example was *not* a lie, nor is the fact
that whales have hip bones.
Nor is the fact that both humans and chimps have traces of an a
retrovirus that affects only apes in our DNA. The traces occur at the
same point in both sequences, and is a BIG FUCKING CLUE that humans
and chimps split off from a common ancestor. That's called *data*,
godboy.
>> and I
>> would welcome that challenge. As for Newton
>
> a born again Christian who believed in a literal interpretation
> of the Genesis record.
Oh, you fatuous idiot, you. Newton was a type of
believer, but he wasn't any sort of christian that you would
recognize. Go actually *read* Newton's stuff, and then read the books
that he owned. He was a quirky kind of deist at best. The last thing
he was is a "born again christian."
You need to do your homework before you post this crap here, Sparky.
Some of us actually *have* educations.
>> every aspect of evolution
>> is based upon identical kinds of observations and explainations. This
>> guy should not have dared post in alt.philosophy for he shall be
>> grilled alive.
>> In science, a theory is an explanation.
>
> It is a model that needs to be tested.
And evolution *has* been tested, for the last 150 years. So far
there's *no* data that contradicts evolutionary theory.
>> Evolution is a theory, just
>> like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an explaination
>> of observations.
>
> It is a Law because it has never been disproved or shown to be
> contrary to itself. Â The real question is, why are there ANY laws
> in a random universe?
Evolution is *not* random. It is a stochastic process.
And by the way, you don't have to capitalize "Law" when talking about
science. Scientists don't worship scientific principals.
And "law" is obsolete in science, anyway. Today we call them
"theories."
>>If you drop something, it's going to fall. That's an
>> observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain that observation
>> with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of what whatever it
>> is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is attracted by the
>> mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember, a theory is an
>> explanation.
>
>> In science, a theory is an explanation of observations. You explain an
>> observation with a theory.
>
> But it never extends beyond that aside from natural laws such as you
> afore mentioned gravity or 1 &2 laws of thermodynamics, etc. Â And
> these
> "laws" do not favor the evolutionary model.
Please quote both the first and second laws of thermodynamics. Then
explain exactly how evolution violates them. Put your answers here:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(Please bear in mind, when you answer, that I actually *know* the laws
of thermodynamics.)
>
>> As for the eye, peice a cake holmes;
>
> Design, not evolution over "billions and billions of years" is the
> best
> hypothesis for the formation of the eye. Â For there are many types
> of eyes and natural selection accounts for none of them. Â Compare
> the blood vessels in the eye of man compared to that of an octopus.
Natural selection accounts for *all* of them. And while we're on the
subject of eyes, if you believe that some supernatural god designed
life forms, then please explain why we got inferior eyes? Our eyes
aren't nearly as good as the eyes of cephalopods (octopi, squid, etc.)
or raptors (hawks, eagles). Why did your inept god route the optic
nerve right through the retina, giving us a blind spot? Jolly bad
design, that.
> mutations never make something new. Â All those fruit flies and
> all you end up with is useless fruit flies.
Please go to the library, check out some science books, and READ THEM.
>
> natural selection add NOTHING to the gene pool. Â You'll never
> get a Boeing 767 to come out of a Ford truck plant. Â All NS does
> is select from what is available. Â No genetic increase.
Of course you won't get an airplane out of an auto plant. Neither
airplanes or autos are living things that replicate themselves
imperfectly. Imperfect replication is what drives evolution.
And by the way, some genomes (what you call "gene gnomes") are known
to have *decreased*. You don't need an increase in genetic code to
get a change, which you would know if you had even a teaspoonful of
education, which you clearly do not.
> studies in RNA and DNA have all but killed the evolutionary
> argument.
Cite, please? As it happens, the modern discipline of genetics
supports evolution. Which you would know if you EVER CRACKED A
SCIENCE BOOK.
> Â Much is true for stellar and chemical "evolution."
Please don't conflate astronomy with biology. We're talking about
biological evolution here, not how stars develop.
And chemicals don't "evolve," either, sugarbritches.
> A single gene has shown itself to be such an extremely
> complex that many scientist on the caliber of Sir Fred
> Hoyle have resorted to some sort of "god."
That doesn't mean there *is* a god. Pick up Victor Stenger's books
_God: The Failed Hypothesis_ and _The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do
the Laws of Physics Come From?_ Stenger neatly (and exhaustively)
demonstrates why there's no god necessary in order for the universe to
exist.
And while you're at it, get yourself a copy of Richard Dawkins' _The
Blind Watchmaker_. It will clear up some of your confusion about how
genetic inheritance works.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
