| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John Jones" |
| Date: |
15 Jun 2006 04:50:37 PM |
| Object: |
Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
.....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival' looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook, an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
.
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 07:05:11 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
And no one supposes otherwise. What does this have to do with your
"Subject" line?
Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Still irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about biology, not
chemistry.
And in living organisms, DNA is replicated to make lots
of new DNA.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
AFAICT, there is no such "modern scientific idea". Would you
like to learn more about what evolutionary biology is actually
about?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
may help.
looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook,
Nope. It's more hay-scented, redolent of strawmen.
an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
All of which do in fact exist, so belief in them has considerable
merit. But what relevance does that have to evolutionary science?
Now, did you think you had some point to make about evolution?
What is it? If you want agreement that what you seem to believe
evolution is all about is indeed "REALLY dumb", that should be
readily available.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 05:18:49 AM |
|
|
mel turner wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
And no one supposes otherwise. What does this have to do with your
"Subject" line?
Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Still irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about biology, not
chemistry.
If evolution is concerned with gross structures called biological
life-forms, rather than with the chemical DNA and the chemical 'gene'
(for these are chemicals in that they exhibit a preponderance of
chemical reactions), it should abandon causal links between them. Are
you saying that such links are not made?
And in living organisms, DNA is replicated to make lots
of new DNA.
The term 'replication' is destructively ambiguous. Carbon dioxide was
replicated on Venus when its release from rocks precipitated further
release. The fact that DNA is used to make similar molecules is not of
any significance to the life form. DNA could have been produced by any
means.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
AFAICT, there is no such "modern scientific idea". Would you
like to learn more about what evolutionary biology is actually
about?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
I wouldn't.
looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook,
Nope. It's more hay-scented, redolent of strawmen.
You are out in the fields. Come back. Transmigration of chemicals is a
modern belief.
an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
All of which do in fact exist, so belief in them has considerable
merit. But what relevance does that have to evolutionary science?
A primitivism stalks the corridors of modern science. It believes that
chemicals transmigrate, and uses a variety of tools to hunt them down.
As a material science evolution assumes an anthropomorphism to identify
the objects of its concern.
Now, did you think you had some point to make about evolution?
What is it? If you want agreement that what you seem to believe
evolution is all about is indeed "REALLY dumb", that should be
readily available.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 03:13:37 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150453129.517422.217770@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
mel turner wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
And no one supposes otherwise. What does this have to do with your
"Subject" line?
Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Still irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about biology, not
chemistry.
If evolution is concerned with gross structures called biological
life-forms, rather than with the chemical DNA and the chemical 'gene'
"The chemical 'gene'"? What an odd expression.
Got the formula for this "chemical"?
(for these are chemicals in that they exhibit a preponderance of
chemical reactions), it should abandon causal links between them. Are
you saying that such links are not made?
I'm saying that "evolution" is a process that only occurs at the even
grosser level of whole breeding populations of organisms. As others
point out, you're committing a basic logical fallacy:
"People all have mothers. Therefore, the United States had a
mother."
"Organisms are made of chemicals. People are organisms. Therefore,
chemicals wrote the Gettysburg Address. But that's ridiculous. How
can a chemical hold a pen?"
And in living organisms, DNA is replicated to make lots
of new DNA.
The term 'replication' is destructively ambiguous.
Ambiguous how? Substitute: "Copied multiple times, using
the existing DNA as a template. Duplicated."
Carbon dioxide was
replicated on Venus when its release from rocks precipitated further
release.
Nope. CO2 isn't used as a template to make new copies of itself.
The fact that DNA is used to make similar molecules is not of
any significance to the life form.
That would be startling news to science if it were actually true.
DNA could have been produced by any
means.
You seem to be adrift here. In nature, DNA is only produced in
organisms. Yes, we can also do it in vitro. So?
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
AFAICT, there is no such "modern scientific idea". Would you
like to learn more about what evolutionary biology is actually
about?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
[snip]
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
I wouldn't.
That's okay, you're welcome to remain blissfully ignorant. Still,
there's always the possibility that others may be interested.
looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook,
Nope. It's more hay-scented, redolent of strawmen.
You are out in the fields. Come back.
Why? Biological field research is quite useful.
Transmigration of chemicals is a modern belief.
One that you just made up. There's no such scientific belief.
an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
All of which do in fact exist, so belief in them has considerable
merit. But what relevance does that have to evolutionary science?
A primitivism stalks the corridors of modern science.
As opposed to what, exactly? Just what sort of stuff do you wish to
peddle as a substitute for modern science?
It believes that
chemicals transmigrate, and uses a variety of tools to hunt them down.
Nope.
As a material science evolution assumes an anthropomorphism to identify
the objects of its concern.
Utterly wrong again, but again you're welcome to believe whatever
it is you do. Just don't expect much agreement from others.
Now, did you think you had some point to make about evolution?
What is it? If you want agreement that what you seem to believe
evolution is all about is indeed "REALLY dumb", that should be
readily available.
cheers
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 09:45:52 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 03:18:49 -0700, in alt.atheism , "John Jones"
<jonescardiff@aol.com> in
<1150453129.517422.217770@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
mel turner wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
And no one supposes otherwise. What does this have to do with your
"Subject" line?
Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Still irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about biology, not
chemistry.
If evolution is concerned with gross structures called biological
life-forms, rather than with the chemical DNA and the chemical 'gene'
(for these are chemicals in that they exhibit a preponderance of
chemical reactions), it should abandon causal links between them.
Countries (states, cities, etc.) hold elections, individuals vote.
There is a causal relationship there but countries don't vote and
individual don't hold elections.
Are
you saying that such links are not made?
Look up the fallacy of composition, you keep making it. Things do not
necessarily have the characteristics of their components and
components do not necessarily have the characteristics of the larger
system.
And in living organisms, DNA is replicated to make lots
of new DNA.
The term 'replication' is destructively ambiguous.
Not for the people who actually do the work. You insist on vague
"poetic" language and then complain about confusion.
By *observation* organisms reproduce. (If you don't understand that
take a basic biology course.) By *observation* descendents differ in
an inheritable manner from ancestors. It is convenient to tracks DNA
(well, alleles actually, and if you don't know what those are look it
up) as a somewhat special inherited item. By *observation* the
frequency of these alleles change in populations over time. You may
not like it, but this is what is *observed*.
Carbon dioxide was
replicated on Venus when its release from rocks precipitated further
release.
For a different meaning of the term "replicated". Look up the word
"equivocation".
The fact that DNA is used to make similar molecules is not of
any significance to the life form. DNA could have been produced by any
means.
Your ignorance of biology is noted. Science only explores what does
happen, not what could happen in some fantasy world.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
AFAICT, there is no such "modern scientific idea". Would you
like to learn more about what evolutionary biology is actually
about?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
I wouldn't.
We can tell. You can remain ignorant. Your ignorance will not change
how evolution works.
looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook,
Nope. It's more hay-scented, redolent of strawmen.
You are out in the fields. Come back. Transmigration of chemicals is a
modern belief.
For some non-standard notion of "transmigration".
an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
All of which do in fact exist, so belief in them has considerable
merit. But what relevance does that have to evolutionary science?
A primitivism stalks the corridors of modern science.
Well, get out. Or learn.
It believes that
chemicals transmigrate,
Your deliberate (see your statement above) ignorance tells us about
you, not about evolution.
and uses a variety of tools to hunt them down.
Nope.
As a material science evolution assumes an anthropomorphism to identify
the objects of its concern.
No, *you* use (deliberately?) vague and misleading language and *you*
don't understand the science.
Now, did you think you had some point to make about evolution?
What is it? If you want agreement that what you seem to believe
evolution is all about is indeed "REALLY dumb", that should be
readily available.
cheers
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 06:14:01 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 03:18:49 -0700, in alt.atheism , "John Jones"
<jonescardiff@aol.com> in
<1150453129.517422.217770@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
mel turner wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
And no one supposes otherwise. What does this have to do with your
"Subject" line?
Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Still irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is about biology, not
chemistry.
If evolution is concerned with gross structures called biological
life-forms, rather than with the chemical DNA and the chemical 'gene'
(for these are chemicals in that they exhibit a preponderance of
chemical reactions), it should abandon causal links between them.
Countries (states, cities, etc.) hold elections, individuals vote.
There is a causal relationship there but countries don't vote and
individual don't hold elections.
Are
you saying that such links are not made?
Look up the fallacy of composition, you keep making it. Things do not
necessarily have the characteristics of their components and
components do not necessarily have the characteristics of the larger
system.
And in living organisms, DNA is replicated to make lots
of new DNA.
The term 'replication' is destructively ambiguous.
Not for the people who actually do the work. You insist on vague
"poetic" language and then complain about confusion.
By *observation* organisms reproduce. (If you don't understand that
take a basic biology course.) By *observation* descendents differ in
an inheritable manner from ancestors. It is convenient to tracks DNA
(well, alleles actually, and if you don't know what those are look it
up) as a somewhat special inherited item. By *observation* the
frequency of these alleles change in populations over time. You may
not like it, but this is what is *observed*.
Carbon dioxide was
replicated on Venus when its release from rocks precipitated further
release.
For a different meaning of the term "replicated". Look up the word
"equivocation".
The fact that DNA is used to make similar molecules is not of
any significance to the life form. DNA could have been produced by any
means.
Your ignorance of biology is noted. Science only explores what does
happen, not what could happen in some fantasy world.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
AFAICT, there is no such "modern scientific idea". Would you
like to learn more about what evolutionary biology is actually
about?
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://evolution.mbdojo.com/evolution-for-beginners.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links-gensci.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/other-links.html#evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu
I wouldn't.
We can tell. You can remain ignorant. Your ignorance will not change
how evolution works.
looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook,
Nope. It's more hay-scented, redolent of strawmen.
You are out in the fields. Come back. Transmigration of chemicals is a
modern belief.
For some non-standard notion of "transmigration".
an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
All of which do in fact exist, so belief in them has considerable
merit. But what relevance does that have to evolutionary science?
A primitivism stalks the corridors of modern science.
Well, get out. Or learn.
It believes that
chemicals transmigrate,
Your deliberate (see your statement above) ignorance tells us about
you, not about evolution.
and uses a variety of tools to hunt them down.
Nope.
As a material science evolution assumes an anthropomorphism to identify
the objects of its concern.
No, *you* use (deliberately?) vague and misleading language and *you*
don't understand the science.
Now, did you think you had some point to make about evolution?
What is it? If you want agreement that what you seem to believe
evolution is all about is indeed "REALLY dumb", that should be
readily available.
cheers
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
erg
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 05:52:48 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:1150408237.229178.128690
@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
How can it be the end of it, if as you say, chemicals change. You have
contradicted your own argument (if there is an argument somewhere in
there).
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
What on Mars are you babbling about? You seem to be confused.
For actual information about biological evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 04:23:59 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
How can it be the end of it, if as you say, chemicals change. You have
contradicted your own argument (if there is an argument somewhere in
there).
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes. If I had
said that a chemical vanishes you would have demanded redress from the
law of conservation of energy, then I would have to explain about... do
you see?
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
What on Mars are you babbling about? You seem to be confused.
Take it as fact. Evolution is about chemical survival - replication,
passing on genes, surviuval of the fittest.
For actual information about biological evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Klazmon.
I know my stuff already. Evolutionary theory is deeply flawed as a
philosophical venture. Unlike Darwinism and some fundamentalists, I'm
not a creationist. You would be wise to pay attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
18 Jun 2006 05:08:53 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in news:1150449839.389504.10110
@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
How can it be the end of it, if as you say, chemicals change. You have
contradicted your own argument (if there is an argument somewhere in
there).
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes.
False. The obvious counter example is DNA which can be changed by a
mutiation and still remains DNA. In fact such changes are what causes
genetic variation to arise in a population. You personally are guaranteed
to have some tens of differences (mutations) in your DNA that did not occur
in the somatic cell DNA of either of your parents. You are commiting a
fallacy of trying to extend the simple to the complex. All organisms are
made of protons, neutrons and electrons just as any rock or gas or liquid.
That knowledge although interesting in its own right does not help you with
matters biological.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 09:17:02 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 02:23:59 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes.
Actually, no, it aint.
If your assertion were true, then chemical analysis, would be impossible above
the pure element level.
Even such a simple molecule as CO2, would be impossible to break down
If I had
said that a chemical vanishes you would have demanded redress from the
law of conservation of energy, then I would have to explain about... do
you see?
No.
Please explain.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
What on Mars are you babbling about? You seem to be confused.
Take it as fact. Evolution is about chemical survival - replication,
passing on genes, surviuval of the fittest.
Nonononono. Horse first, *then* cart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
18 Jun 2006 06:27:38 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 02:23:59 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes.
Actually, no, it aint.
If your assertion were true, then chemical analysis, would be impossible above
the pure element level.
You are reading 'chemical changes' in two different and opposing ways.
A chemical no longer exists if it changes. The chemical that is, is no
longer, and another arises. We can say it vanishes with the proviso
that we retain the laws of the conservation of energy. I would give up
on this if I were you.
Take it as fact. Evolution is about chemical survival - replication,
passing on genes, surviuval of the fittest.
Nonononono. Horse first, *then* cart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
18 Jun 2006 03:37:40 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 04:27:38 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
You are reading 'chemical changes' in two different and opposing ways.
A chemical no longer exists if it changes. The chemical that is, is no
longer, and another arises. We can say it vanishes with the proviso
that we retain the laws of the conservation of energy. I would give up
on this if I were you.
Oh, I see.
You add "special meanings", to words, as and when you need them.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
18 Jun 2006 07:03:16 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2006 04:27:38 -0700, in alt.atheism , "John Jones"
<jonescardiff@aol.com> in
<1150630057.963685.211120@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 16 Jun 2006 02:23:59 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes.
Actually, no, it aint.
If your assertion were true, then chemical analysis, would be impossible above
the pure element level.
You are reading 'chemical changes' in two different and opposing ways.
A chemical no longer exists if it changes. The chemical that is, is no
longer, and another arises.
That is a very silly way to look at things.
We can say it vanishes with the proviso
that we retain the laws of the conservation of energy. I would give up
on this if I were you.
Give up on what? They don't vanish, things change.
Take it as fact. Evolution is about chemical survival - replication,
passing on genes, surviuval of the fittest.
Nonononono. Horse first, *then* cart.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 12:43:18 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jun 2006 02:23:59 -0700, in alt.atheism , "John Jones"
<jonescardiff@aol.com> in
<1150449839.389504.10110@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
How can it be the end of it, if as you say, chemicals change. You have
contradicted your own argument (if there is an argument somewhere in
there).
Surely its implicit, and pretty obviously implicit, which is why I did
not bring it up, that a chemical vanishes when it changes.
Sorry, but essentialism is nonsense. Put NaCl in H20, the bonds
"break" and you have free floating Na and Cl. They do not vanish, the
stuff changes.
If I had
said that a chemical vanishes you would have demanded redress from the
law of conservation of energy, then I would have to explain about... do
you see?
So what vanished? Things *change*.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival'
What on Mars are you babbling about? You seem to be confused.
Take it as fact. Evolution is about chemical survival - replication,
passing on genes, surviuval of the fittest.
It is about changes in allele frequency in a population of living
organisms over generations. Since organisms do reproduce and allele
frequencies do change you don't have much of an argument. Chemicals do
not, per se, reproduce. Organism (that fallacy of composition again)
reproduce, the inherited characteristics change over time. Word salad
will not change that.
For actual information about biological evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Klazmon.
I know my stuff already. Evolutionary theory is deeply flawed as a
philosophical venture.
Read _Metaphysics of Evolution_ by David Hull. Evolution is actually a
critically important philosophical notion: things *change* over time.
Unlike Darwinism and some fundamentalists, I'm
not a creationist. You would be wise to pay attention.
To what? Your word games regarding "replication"?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 01:15:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1150408237.229178.128690@r2g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Chemicals don't 'evolve'. Biological entities do.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival' looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook, an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
Could you translate this please?
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 02:20:55 PM |
|
|
johac wrote:
Chemicals don't 'evolve'. Biological entities do.
No they don't. Biological entities die and then rot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "mel turner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 02:51:15 PM |
|
|
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150572055.363907.86070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
johac wrote:
Chemicals don't 'evolve'. Biological entities do.
No they don't. Biological entities die and then rot.
You're right for once.
Individual organisms don't evolve.
Populations of organisms evolve, over a number of
generations.
"Evolution" is any change in allele frequencies in a
population over generations.
cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
18 Jun 2006 01:46:15 AM |
|
|
In article <e71l1e$m0k$1@gargoyle.oit.duke.edu>,
"mel turner" <mturner@snipthis.acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
"John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1150572055.363907.86070@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
johac wrote:
Chemicals don't 'evolve'. Biological entities do.
No they don't. Biological entities die and then rot.
You're right for once.
Individual organisms don't evolve.
Populations of organisms evolve, over a number of
generations.
"Evolution" is any change in allele frequencies in a
population over generations.
You're right. I should have said populations;. Mea culpa.
cheers
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott Richter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 09:36:52 AM |
|
|
John Jones <jonescardiff@aol.com> wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival' looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook, an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
Drizzle, drazzle, druzzle, drone. Time for this one to come home...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 07:36:08 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA.
It's a good thing that nobody claims that they do, then.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 07:37:42 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival' looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook, an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
Evolution is basically a simple concept. Surprising that so many
people apparently don't understand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 07:47:42 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 00:37:42 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
....In fact, the modern scientific idea of evolutionary 'chemical
survival' looks a lot like 'soul survival' but is more redolent of a
pre-religious outlook, an outlook that comes from the days when people
believed in stones, clubs and fresh meat.
Evolution is basically a simple concept. Surprising that so many
people apparently don't understand it.
Or don't want to, or do and pretend they don't.
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 05:26:30 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
There are other examples of selection due to non-conscious and indeed
wholly inanimate processes which should, I hope, be clear to you.
Examples are sand through a sieve, or planets (and raindrops) shaping
themselves into spheres, or pennies making a pattern through a peg
board (and any other normal distribution for that matter) or water
running down the steepest gradient (which is a good model for how
natural processes generally occur).
Nobody claims that chemicals somehow magically work for their own
survival. Evolution is the blind process of preferential selection of
those molecules which happen to be better able to replicate themselves
than other molecules.
Sorry. I'm not very smart and not very good at explaining what I do
know. Pick up some of the popular literature and read it. (Dawkins,
Pinker, Ridley) But don't assume that evolution implies conscious
intent on the part of inanimate objects.
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 08:42:24 PM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gospel Bretts" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
15 Jun 2006 08:55:31 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
LOL. Thanks for asking, Mark. No, I'm feeling a bit under the weather.
:)
For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son that
whosever would believe in him would believe just about anything.
WTFWJD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 12:40:48 AM |
|
|
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
LOL. Thanks for asking, Mark. No, I'm feeling a bit under the weather.
:)
I'm very perceptive about these things.
You need chicken soup!
(And Im not even Jewish!)
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 08:49:43 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 22:40:48 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
LOL. Thanks for asking, Mark. No, I'm feeling a bit under the weather.
:)
I'm very perceptive about these things.
You need chicken soup!
(And Im not even Jewish!)
8-)
Mark.
I would have suggested a good mutton broth, but Jones the Sheep, might be
offended.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 12:49:00 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
It turns out that Bretts, by his own words, is actually an atheist,
but came in pretending to be a fundy just to yank a few chains. While
introducing yourself by doing a Loki troll might not be the wisest
course of action, I'm willing to let him out of the killfile (just
this once. <G>)
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 09:02:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 05:49:00 GMT, John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au>
wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
It turns out that Bretts, by his own words, is actually an atheist,
but came in pretending to be a fundy just to yank a few chains. While
introducing yourself by doing a Loki troll might not be the wisest
course of action, I'm willing to let him out of the killfile (just
this once. <G>)
It is a possibility of course, but not one I would make book on.
Over the years, we have had several moderate xtians drop in for a chat.
Pleasant people who are in all other respects, well educated, and sensible,
their only aberration being a continued belief in a god.
The funny thing about them, is that when you compare their behavior, and that of
the fanatics, to what the bible says, their's, the moderates, that is, always
seems to the be the closest to what the NT says it should be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
17 Jun 2006 08:48:14 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2006 18:42:24 -0700, "Richo" <m.richardson@utas.edu.au> wrote:
Gospel Bretts wrote:
On 15 Jun 2006 14:50:37 -0700, "John Jones" <jonescardiff@aol.com>
wrote:
Just to remind ourselves, no chemical works for its own survival,
whether carbon dioxide or DNA. Chemical Survival never happens, not in
"evolution" or anywhere else. Chemicals change, DNA rots, and that's
the end of it.
Conscious intent is indeed absent in the molecules themselves, and
nobody claims it isn't; that's just the creationists' deliberate
misinterpretation.
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
Unfortunately, he gave it to Jones the Sheep, so it was pretty much wasted
anyway.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution - is it REALLY dumb? |
16 Jun 2006 04:16:25 AM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
Hey Bretts!
You just gave a non silly/inteligent reply.
You feeling OK?
8-)
Mark.
You better read my response to him because it seems you guys are still
falling into the mistake I outlined.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
