>> On Jun 25, 5:37=A0pm, 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?
But you know?...it's kind of catchy, if you pronounce
the second `g'. Try it.
>
>> has found a bottleneck in the gene
>> pool that dates back to roughly 6,000 yrs ago. =A0Just 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! =A0Theory. =A0That 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. =A0Models 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 =A0when it was all a hoax (lie). =A0=
> 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.
Ah, but he said it first, and sneered. Thus it is invalidated.
>
> 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."
Can `lsenders' say "Socinian"?...
-- cary
>
> 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. =A0The 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. =A0And
>> 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. =A0For there are many types
>> of eyes and natural selection accounts for none of them. =A0Compare
>> 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. =A0All 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. =A0You'll never
>> get a Boeing 767 to come out of a Ford truck plant. =A0All NS does
>> is select from what is available. =A0No 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.
>
>> =A0Much 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
