In article
z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com> SkyEyes cox.net> writes:>> In article <8def273e-f745-4143-9f96-5f956888a...@r37g2000prm.googlegroups=
> .com> SkyEyes
cox.net> writes:>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 26, 2:19=3DA0pm, lsend...@
hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> On Jun 25, 5:37=3DA0pm, 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? =A0I do not believe this is accurate. =A0Please provide
>>> scientific references.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> the Gene gnome project
>>
>>> The "Gene gnome project"???
>>
>>> =A0Spell much? =A0How 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'. =A0Try it.
>
> Oh, man. That's too goofy even for fundidiots.
>
>>>> has found a bottleneck in the gene
>>>> pool that dates back to roughly 6,000 yrs ago. =3DA0Just about the
>>>> time of Noah's universal flood.
>>
>>> That's flat *wrong*. =A0The bottleneck was ~70,000 years ago, not
>>> 6,000. =A0Stop parroting the [wrong] information your fundy handlers
>>> spoonfeed you and fucking LOOK THINGS UP.
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> cough! =3DA0Theory. =3DA0That 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. =3DA0Models 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." =A0It means "a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon
>>> that takes into account *all* the data currently known."
>>
>>> *Theories* explain *phenomena*. =A0Something can be a fact and a theory
>>> simultaneously. =A0Ever hear of "music *theory*?" =A0It's the explanati=
> on
>>> of how the *fact* of music works. =A0Ever hear of "germ *theory* of
>>> disease"? =A0It's the explanation of how germs, which are real, factual
>>> things, cause diseases. =A0Gravity 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. =A0Suck 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 =3DA0when it was all a hoax (lie=
> ). =3DA0=3D
>>> 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. =A0Thus it is invalidated.
>
> As fucking if.
>
>>> Nor is the fact that both humans and chimps have traces of an a
>>> retrovirus that affects only apes in our DNA. =A0The traces occur at th=
> e
>>> same point in both sequences, and is a BIG FUCKING CLUE that humans
>>> and chimps split off from a common ancestor. =A0That'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. =A0Newton was a type of
>>> believer, but he wasn't any sort of christian that you would
>>> recognize. =A0Go actually *read* Newton's stuff, and then read the book=
> s
>>> that he owned. =A0He was a quirky kind of deist at best. =A0The last th=
> ing
>>> he was is a "born again christian."
>>
>> Can `lsenders' say "Socinian"?...
> Ah! That was the term I was
> struggling to remember!
That's because I'm a clever lady astronomer.
(plus I keep my own archives, and went and looked it up)
>
> I hate being blonde.
Yum!
>
> Brenda
-- cary
