On Jun 26, 5:02Â pm, SkyEyes
cox.net> wrote:>> 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? Â I do not believe this is accurate. Â Please provide
> scientific references.
>
NO! You provide me with observable and documented beneficial
mutation. Shouldn't be hard are many HS and college text books
still repeat the same examples which were proven wrong more than
a 100 yrs ago in some instances. But evolution is a religion and
it must keep up its mantra.
Read Pierre-Paul Grasse, "Evolution of Living Organisms" p. 88.
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not
produce any kind of evolution." i.e. mutation merely rearranges
existing genetic information but never increases its complexity.
>
>
>> the Gene gnome project
>
> The "Gene gnome project"???
>
> Â Spell much? Â How do you expect us to take anything
> you say seriously if you don't even look up how the project is
> spelled?
>
Go to the website and read its finding for yourself.
>
>> 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*. Â The bottleneck was ~70,000 years ago, not
> 6,000. Â Stop parroting the [wrong] information your fundy handlers
> spoonfeed you and fucking LOOK THINGS UP.
>
dido. Also, the genome project up dated its nucleotide difference
from
1.6 %% to 4 %% about a year ago. I'm sure they have raised it even
further by now. But even 1.6%% difference calculates out to roughly
48,000,000 nucleotides and a change of even 3 is fatal.
Evolution does not even qualify as a theory but a metaphysical
research program.
>
>
>> 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." Â It means "a comprehensive explanation for a phenomenon
> that takes into account *all* the data currently known."
>
a theory is just that, a hypothesis. It is not grounded in
empirical knowledge. It is speculative in nature. It proposes
that X is true and then sets about to prove it as best as it
can.
But herein lies the major deficiency of "science" or "academia"
it cannot raise up or put forth either an absolute (Law of nature)
or a transcendental ethic. All it can put forth is a statistical
average and then claim, "We're pretty sure about this as we've
never seen the contrary."
> *Theories* explain *phenomena*. Â
Explain energy for us. Just what is it and where does it
come from our thermodynamic "laws" stand contrary to
this mechanical universe being some kind of self replicating
perpetual machine.
>Something can be a fact and a theory
> simultaneously. Â Ever hear of "music *theory*?" Â It's the explanation
> of how the *fact* of music works. Â Ever hear of "germ *theory* of
> disease"? Â It's the explanation of how germs, which are real, factual
> things, cause diseases. Â 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. Â Suck it up and deal.
>
The model of evolution can't even distinquish chemical from stellar
evolution in the order of sequence. Chicken or the egg. There is
NO evidence for cosmic, chemical, stellar, organic or macro evolution.
This is sheer metaphysical hyperbole and yet a hyperbole that is
granted the status of unquestionable truth.
Look at radio carbon dating. It's like the god of dating standard and
yet how often is it noted that equilibrium has not yet been reached
on this planet as it is still forming at a rate in or around 30%%
faster
than it is decaying.
Evolution pretends to explain something but when closely studied,
it only brings more questions and unresolved dilemma's.
The universe evidences order and design and the very presuppositions
of scientific investigation is founded upon this principle. There
never
has been a theory, let alone an answer to the question of the many and
the one, unity in the midst of the diversity.... except one. The
unity
and diversity within the Triunity of the Godhead. Christianity
separates
itself from ALL other faiths at this juncture. You'll have to search
hard
but you will only find the occassional triadic divinity but until the
revelation of Jesus Christ, there was simply no resolve to the
dilemma.
>>> 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,
Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! Oh, you crack me up!
>
> nor is the fact that whales have hip bones.
>
Hardy, har har har. Those aren't hip bones. You know, God gave
you a brain to use. Those are little bones are required for
reproduction.
Never had anatomy I guess. And I suppose that you're going to try
that old trick of mentioning that all embryos have gills slits.
>
> Nor is the fact that both humans and chimps have traces of an a
> retrovirus that affects only apes in our DNA. Â 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. Â That's called *data*,
> godboy.
>
The probablity of just one (1) DNA arranging its own sequence by
chance is equal probability to 1 chance in 10 to the 119,000 power.
Compare that to the entire universe being around 10 to the 28th
inches in diameter. Humans are closer to tobacco than chimps
in chromosome count.
>>> 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. Â Newton was a type of
> believer, but he wasn't any sort of christian that you would
> recognize.
Really. Shows how much you have actually read his theology.
>Â Go actually *read* Newton's stuff, and then read the books
> that he owned. Â He was a quirky kind of deist at best. Â The last thing
> he was is a "born again christian."
>
Deism came later. Don't you know even that much?
> You need to do your homework before you post this crap here, Sparky.
> Some of us actually *have* educations.
>
You haven't proven that to me so far. And beside, academia
is a closed system. It claims to be open, but it isn't. Just try
to get a real professor to debate a creationist. Hen's teeth. And
try to get a debate at governmentally funded research facility.
Impossible. Closed system, closed doors, closed minds.
I will say this however, the last decade of my employment at
a world class research facility, many more scientist where
entertaining the concept of "god" and even a few bantered
about a Creator. But if one does much more, you're drummed
out of the corps rather quickly.
>>> 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. Â So far
> there's *no* data that contradicts evolutionary theory.
>
Now this is the biggest laugh of them all. There's NO data
that supports it. Were are all the transitional forms? Why
is there no delta at the bottom of the Grand Canyon. And
if the canyon is millions of years old, since when did water
begin traversing up hill. From where the river enters the
canyon to where it exits, the ridge line is nearly a mile
high. And where is the erosion between sedimentary
layers? Why do we find things like trees and inverted
whales petrified and vertical through 3 or 4 geological
layers? etc etc etc
BTW, explain to me how a trilobite can be found in the
oldest limestone layer yet have the most complex eye
yet discovered?
Explain to me how the largest dinosaur ever discovered
had a nostril opening only as large as a present day
horse?
Can't believe in a Designer? Read NATURE, oct '94,
"Very Fast Flagellar Rotation" article. How can a hair
on a bacteria rotate up to 100,000 RPM when the smaller
you get the greater the viscosity. Oh, btw, you could
fit 8,000,000 of them on a cross section of a human
hair.
This sort of complexity far exceeds the probability
of Websters International Dictionary "evolving" in
perfect type set if you dropped a 10,000 bomb on
a print shop. Bacterial hairs have bearings, rotors
and stator blades. Think of that the next time you
fly on a jet and think how impressive human
achievement is.
