"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0404012135.706e4b3d@posting.google.com...
Editor of EvilBible.com <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<FYednV83lbvSC_jdRVn-ug@adelphia.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0403251943.59a65105@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<-5idnerOx6c0av_d4p2dnA@adelphia.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0403241841.4cee87c7@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<DK-dnei8YYKDmcLdRVn-hg@adelphia.com>...
"david ford" <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:b1c67abe.0403220509.70ae74a3@posting.google.com...
AC <mightymartianca@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<slrnc5ss06.2d4.mightymartianca@alder.alberni.net>...
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:49:05 +0000 (UTC),
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
Darlington, C.D. 1939. _The Evolution of Genetic
^^^^
<snip>
Simply pathetic, David.
In 1939, was the theory of NS well-supported by the
experimental
evidence then available?
In 1939, was there a detailed Darwinian account for how
exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
Today, in 2004, is there a detailed Darwinian account for how
exactly
meiosis and sex arose in a gradual/ step-by-tiny-step fashion?
Today, in 20004, is there even a crude theory about how an
intelligent
creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
Prediction: by 20004, confirmation will have been obtained for
the
allegation that life can come from non-life totally apart from the
input of any intelligence. Sadly, this confirmation does not
exist
presently.
Why don't you answer the question? Is there even a crude theory
about
how
an intelligent creator created sexually reproducing organisms?
Not that I know of.
If there is no theory then there can't be any evidence to support this
non-theory. Why would you believe that an intelligent creator created
life
when you admit there is no theory (and therefore no evidence) that could
explain how this happened?
Here are 2 situations:
1) Neither a crude nor a highly-refined theory exists of how an
intelligence might go about creating:
a) a spacecraft capable of traveling 9/10ths of the speed of light;
b) sexually-reproducing organisms.
You are wrong again. Theories exist for both of these scenarios.
2) If such a speedy spacecraft were to be constructed, it would have
begun to exist and it would very probably possess the appearance of
having been designed by intelligence.
It would only appear to be designed by intelligent beings because it
supports the theory of spacecraft construction. If you have no theory of
spacecraft construction then you can't say that it appears to be constructed
by intelligent beings.
Sexually-reproducing organisms began to exist and strongly exhibit the
appearance of having been designed by one or more intelligences of far
greater intellect than the best and brightest human intellects.
And you are wrong again. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?
If you have no theory about how an intelligent being created life than how
can you claim to have evidence that supports this theory?
Both situations 1 and 2 can logically exist at the same time. The
presence of the situations in 1) does not preclude the possibility of
there also being the situations described in 2).
There is not even a crude theory about how
intelligent human scientists can create asexually reproducing
organisms.
Actually there is a very detailed theory and this has been confirmed
experimentally. Scientists have created viruses twice in the lab. I
have
reposted the first experiment on my web site:
http://www.evilbible.com/Synthetic%20Life.htm
Viruses are not life. A virus hijacks the replication machinery of
living cells and has the living cells produce copies of the virus.
Beck, William S., Karel F. Liem, and George Gaylord
Simpson. 1991. _Life: An Introduction to Biology_ (NY:
HarperCollins), 1361+pp. On 94-95:
The nature of viruses, so familiar as causes of such
human diseases as influenza, poliomyelitis, and viral
pneumonia, has been endlessly debated. Are they or are
they not living organisms?
Countless kinds of viruses exist. All are totally
dependent upon living cells, though they are not cells
themselves. They consist largely of genetic material--
DNA or RNA-- surrounded by a coat or envelope
consisting mainly of protein. They possess genes,
sometimes as many as several hundred (but usually far
fewer). In contrast, cells contain many thousands.
The fact is that viruses are not capable of an
independent existence. They enter cells as invaders,
commandeering the cell's metabolic machinery to suit
the virus's needs. Each virus type has an affinity for a
specific host cell type-- animal, plant, or bacterial. Once
inside a host cell, the virus causes the cell to curtail its
normal activities and to begin producing new viruses.
In the course of this process, the host cell may be
destroyed, although some viruses are able to linger
within their host cells, sometimes for many generations,
without destroying them. One would hardly term viral
reproduction "self-reproduction," since it can occur only
with the help of host cells. If the definition of living
includes self-reproduction, viruses are not living. For
this reason they are not included in any of the five
kingdoms.
Nevertheless, viruses do contain protein and either DNA
or RNA. As we shall see, they also exhibit predictable
genetic traits, despite the fact that in the isolated state
they lack two of the major characteristics of living
systems described in Chapter 1-- self-reproduction and
self-regulation. Their simplicity is deceptive, however.
Their very interesting methods for duplicating themselves
within cells are remarkable.
Plasmids are....
First of all you should note that this says that this has been endlessly
debated. This implies that there is not general agreement in the scientific
community. Secondly, this is outdated because it claims that viruses are
completely dependent upon living cells. Virus today can be grown in cell
free extracts. The paper that I referred you to did this. This entire
argument is therefore incorrect.
I know the
answer is no, you just refuse to admit it.
So why would any intelligent person reject a scientific theory
because
it is
not detailed enough and accept a fantasy that doesn't even have a
crude
scientific explanation? That makes no sense at all.
[EofE]"reject a scientific theory" Please describe, if you would,
this theory.
What does [EofE] mean?
It should be obvious. Let me know if it still isn't.
As for an explanation of natural selection and evolution, there are
plenty
of references on the internet.
And in libraries, and bookstores, and through subscriptions to
periodicals. It must be a good feeling, knowing that there exists in
these locations description of a [EoE]"scientific theory" that one is
not willing to put forward for examination and discussion.
Who said that I wasn't willing to discuss it? I'm just waiting for you to
post a theory of intelligent design. Since you said there is not a theory I
don't see any point in putting up with your nonsense. Even if you were to
prove that the theories of abiogenesis and evolution were totally and
completely incorrect you still have not provided a shred of evidence that
life was caused by intelligent design. To show that intelligent design is
correct you need to postulate a theory about how the intelligent designer
created life and show evidence that supports this theory. You have never
done this.
I'll tell you what. I'll give you a head start. For the sake of argument I
will assume that you have proven that abiogenesis and evolution are
completely wrong. Now show me why I should believe in intelligent design.
Someone posted quite a few references to the
evolution of sexual reproduction in this thread. I am not an expert in
the
evolution of sexual reproduction so I can't give you a very detailed
explanation.
Have you looked up and read any of those references? If "yes": did
you read [EoE]"a very detailed explanation" of _how_ sexual
reproduction could have arisen in a gradual, step-by-tiny-step
fashion?
If you reply that you didn't read any of those references: do you
believe there is such a description in one or more of those papers
cited, and if so, upon what basis do you believe that?
I read some of the abstracts, and I posted one that describes how sexual
reproduction evolved.
[EofE]"accept a fantasy" The hypothesis that intelligence is
responsible for something or for some state of affairs is invoked all
the time by intelligent persons, e.g. archaeologists, forensic
pathologists, and insurance fraud investigators.
These people invoke this hypothesis when they have a theory that
explains
how an intelligent person created something. They don't claim an
intelligent creator created something without a reasonable theory about
how
the intelligent creator created it.
Incorrect. When stone heads were first encountered on Easter Island
by outsiders, it was immediately and correctly believed that
intelligence was responsible for the construction of the stone heads,
even though a theory about how exactly the heads were constructed was
lacking. An experimentally-tested head construction hypothesis
_isn't_ required before we can reasonably conclude from the heads'
look/appearance and our correct belief that the heads began to exist
that the heads are the product of intelligent design.
*****! I'm sure these people quickly hypothesized that people quarried
stone and carved the heads.
A forensic pathologist can look at the wounds on a dead body and say,
"Intelligence, and not old age, and not a lightning bolt, and not
extreme winds, was responsible for the death of this person." A
hypothesis about what murder weapon(s) were used, how many accomplices
there were, what the motives of the perpetrator(s) was, etc. is _not_
needed before coming to the reasonable conclusion, "Intelligence is
responsible for this state of affairs."
More *****. If a dead body is found below a high-rise construction site
and they died from the fall, how are the wounds going to tell if he jumped
(intelligent cause) or slipped (non-intelligent cause)?
If someone claims that their 2002 car was accidentally totaled and
demands that an insurance company pay for the loss, and an insurance
fraud investigator discovers that the crushed car lacks its expensive
engine and has old, balding tires, he or she can reasonably conclude
that intelligence was responsible for the replacement of the tires and
the removal of the engine before the car was "accidentally"/
deliberately totaled. The insurance fraud investigator doesn't need a
theory of how the tires were replaced, of how the engine was removed,
and of whether one or more persons were involved in the tire-changing
and engine-removal before he or she can reasonably conclude,
"Intelligence was responsible for the disappearance of the engine, the
changing of the tires, and the filing of a fraudulent insurance
claim."
The theory is very obvious. Someone replace the engine and tires. Duh!
As an example, consider the claim that Tom made it rain yesterday. If
you
have a theory that Tom flew a plane into clouds and scattered iodine
crystals into the clouds, then that is a reasonable theory. If Tom was
in
jail when it rained and you have no theory about how he could have made
it
rain then that is nothing but a fantasy.
.
