| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" |
| Date: |
21 Apr 2004 10:46:47 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
---
Anti-War / Anti-Fascism protest: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/awp.htm
"The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women
and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda,
and that is lies." -- Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt, Nazi
"...since when is fighting invaders in your own country terrorism?" - Tempest
.
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 12:23:00 AM |
|
|
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change* withins
kinds or families. Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in sceintific
circles. Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gill" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 06:43:55 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
Change is not necessarly upward or
downward, just change. The word change and evolution are definitely
not the same idea in sceintific circles. Yes Fred, all things change,
gee if that was the whole debate no one would have a problem. Time to
rethink!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 10:55:41 AM |
|
|
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
Change is not necessarly upward or
downward, just change. The word change and evolution are definitely
not the same idea in sceintific circles. Yes Fred, all things change,
gee if that was the whole debate no one would have a problem. Time to
rethink!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:00:44 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:15:28 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Bohn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 11:18:32 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108ga4r2dcits31@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Could we move the goalposts over there please? That's good. No just a little
to the left. A little more. Good. No it doesn't work there. Try a little to
the right. A little more,... more. Good. No it just isn't working. Could we
move them to the other side of the room? No the other, other side. (Damn
help is hard to find). Good. No, its still not right. I think we need to
bring in a designer, maybe he can decide where to put them.
Go look in the phone book under designer. No, not him..., nor him. No she's
a pain. Try under ID. Yah that's it. I'm sorry, HOW many possibilities are
in the book? How many aliens did you say? That many? How many Ghods? *****...
phone them all, one of them must be able to help out. (Maybe I should just
go pound my head against the wall)!
--
Conservatism is not about tradition and morality, hasn't been for many
decades...It is about the putative biological and spiritual superiority of
the wealthy.
Greg Bear
Gary Bohn
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:43:36 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108ga4r2dcits31@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Randy, you need to look for yourself. I'm right, you are wrong. This
denial just makes you look more foolish.
Not only are humans and the other apes the same family, some taxonomists
argue that chimps and humans belong in the same genus.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobinGoodfellow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:51:41 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108ga4r2dcits31@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Randy, you need to look for yourself. I'm right, you are wrong. This
denial just makes you look more foolish.
Not only are humans and the other apes the same family, some taxonomists
argue that chimps and humans belong in the same genus.
DJT
Dana, no disrespect intended, but technically, Randy appears to be right
on this one. See my reply to him in this thread - it should appear
right next to yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 04:11:37 PM |
|
|
"RobinGoodfellow" <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c69beh$eag$2@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108ga4r2dcits31@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the
speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order.
Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Randy, you need to look for yourself. I'm right, you are wrong. This
denial just makes you look more foolish.
Not only are humans and the other apes the same family, some taxonomists
argue that chimps and humans belong in the same genus.
DJT
Dana, no disrespect intended, but technically, Randy appears to be right
on this one. See my reply to him in this thread - it should appear
right next to yours.
I read it, however according to the most recent taxonomy, including the
"tree of life" project. Hominidae includes the great apes as well as
humans. I'm sure some of the older references still refer to Hominidae as
being humans only. Did you read the references I cited?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RobinGoodfellow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 04:25:55 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"RobinGoodfellow" <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c69beh$eag$2@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108ga4r2dcits31@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG>
wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed
fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which
attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is
*change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the
speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order.
Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
Randy, you need to look for yourself. I'm right, you are wrong. This
denial just makes you look more foolish.
Not only are humans and the other apes the same family, some taxonomists
argue that chimps and humans belong in the same genus.
DJT
Dana, no disrespect intended, but technically, Randy appears to be right
on this one. See my reply to him in this thread - it should appear
right next to yours.
I read it, however according to the most recent taxonomy, including the
"tree of life" project. Hominidae includes the great apes as well as
humans. I'm sure some of the older references still refer to Hominidae as
being humans only. Did you read the references I cited?
DJT
Sorry, didn't see your reference. I did, however, just see Frank's. I
stand corrected. My apologies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J McCoy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
26 Apr 2004 03:41:23 PM |
|
|
There are some atheists who have the audacity to claim that evolution
is proven fact. In some instances evolution can be considered to be
fact because if you define evolution in the plainest meaing, being
that of "change" it is fact. In that case everyone believes in
evolution, even creationists.
Illustration in point. I was in my Biology class in highschool when a
friend of mine said, "so Mr....... are you saying that evolution is
fact?" My biology instructor said, "Evolution means change and we can
prove there is change. Evolution is fact."
I thought that answer was bogus, and so did my friend. In fact, the
idea, often called a "theory", as in the "theory of evolution"
actually is a postulate that claims that all life forms had evolved
from more primitive lifeforms. At least that's what past, long since
dead, evolutionists had claimed. Some evolutionists now claim that the
words "primitive lifeforms" are no longer valid, however.
However, my instructor was disingenious when he claimed that evolution
was change and thus true. The fact was, him, being an instructor,
knew that evolution has different meanings. In the context of a
biology course the "theory of evolution" merely means the concept that
all current lifeforms had evolved from previous lifeforms via changes
over the centuries, hence man evolved from apes or monkeys, or
subsequently both.
But the fact is, today, there is no fact of evolution. Evolution
hasn't been proven and there is not enough factual data that would
convince everyone. Faith is involved in the belief of evolution.
JM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Thompson" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
26 Apr 2004 09:14:43 PM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote in
news:3f355ee.0404261245.6bce8fee@posting.google.com:
There are some atheists who have the audacity to claim that evolution
is proven fact. In some instances evolution can be considered to be
fact because if you define evolution in the plainest meaing, being
that of "change" it is fact. In that case everyone believes in
evolution, even creationists.
There are also a lot of pantheists, Wiccans, Roman Catholics, Lutherans,
Methodists, Hindus, neopagans, and Episcopalians who know that evolution
is a proven fact.
There are a few willfully ignorant people who deny it.
Illustration in point. I was in my Biology class in highschool when a
friend of mine said, "so Mr....... are you saying that evolution is
fact?" My biology instructor said, "Evolution means change and we can
prove there is change. Evolution is fact."
It is sad that you had a good high school teacher, and his efforts were
wasted.
I thought that answer was bogus, and so did my friend. In fact, the
You were wrong then too, eh?
idea, often called a "theory", as in the "theory of evolution"
actually is a postulate that claims that all life forms had evolved
from more primitive lifeforms. At least that's what past, long since
dead, evolutionists had claimed. Some evolutionists now claim that the
words "primitive lifeforms" are no longer valid, however.
Here troll McCoy exhibits his willful misunderstanding of the difference
between fact and theory, despite his having been told dozens of times.
One must wonder at times what it is like to be McCoy, stuck in this
endless loop.
Not that any rational person would want to go there. It's like
wondering what gangrene must feel like.
However, my instructor was disingenious when he claimed that evolution
was change and thus true. The fact was, him, being an instructor,
knew that evolution has different meanings. In the context of a
biology course the "theory of evolution" merely means the concept that
all current lifeforms had evolved from previous lifeforms via changes
over the centuries, hence man evolved from apes or monkeys, or
subsequently both.
So you are telling us that you slept through that part where your
teacher talked about the fact of evolution, vs. the theory of evolution.
Shocked I am not.
But the fact is, today, there is no fact of evolution. Evolution
hasn't been proven and there is not enough factual data that would
convince everyone. Faith is involved in the belief of evolution.
Well, only to those incapable of understanding science. When you use
the word "faith" you really mean "magic". And primitives always invoke
magic when they are faced with the unknown.
JM
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
26 Apr 2004 09:44:12 PM |
|
|
(J McCoy) wrote:
There are some atheists who have the audacity to claim that evolution
is proven fact.
Evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief
or disbelief. Certainly cultists are free and capable of denying
observed, demonstrable fact but attempting to do so results in a
rather heavy dose of cognitive dissonance which can be easily seen
in such types and Morris et al.
---
Anti-War / Anti-Fascism protest: http://www.linkline.com/personal/frice/awp.htm
"The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women
and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda,
and that is lies." -- Senior military spokesman Mark Kimmitt, Nazi
"...since when is fighting invaders in your own country terrorism?" - Tempest
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RobinGoodfellow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:49:26 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
This is technically true (humans belong to Hominidae, chimps belong
Pondigae). However, following recent DNA studies, scientists are
suggesting that not only do chimps belong in the same family as humans,
but they belong to the genus Homo as well. Current genetic analysis
shows 99.4% similarity between the functional genes of humans and chimps
- bringing chimps closer to humans than they are to other great apes.
See, for instance,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744
While classing chimps into the genus homo is not agreed upon, this is
just one demonstration that the notion of family is simply a
classification construct based on observed genotypic and phenotypic
features, and by no means a fixed genetic boundary that, for some
mysterious, unspecified, and unevidenced reason, can never be crossed by
evolutionary processes. Whatever your "baramin" (created kind) is, a
family it ain't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 04:01:59 PM |
|
|
"RobinGoodfellow" <lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c69ba7$eag$1@news01.cit.cornell.edu...
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of
science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I
will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed
outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are
able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches
produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has
been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same
family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils at and above
the
"family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order.
Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
This is technically true (humans belong to Hominidae, chimps belong
Pondigae). However, following recent DNA studies, scientists are
suggesting that not only do chimps belong in the same family as humans,
but they belong to the genus Homo as well. Current genetic analysis
shows 99.4% similarity between the functional genes of humans and chimps
- bringing chimps closer to humans than they are to other great apes.
See, for instance,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744
While classing chimps into the genus homo is not agreed upon, this is
just one demonstration that the notion of family is simply a
classification construct based on observed genotypic and phenotypic
features, and by no means a fixed genetic boundary that, for some
mysterious, unspecified, and unevidenced reason, can never be crossed by
evolutionary processes. Whatever your "baramin" (created kind) is, a
family it ain't.
First, I said family was the closest, second, evolutionists can keep
changing the terms as they please. Third, biblical *kinds* appears to be a
classification of the ability to breed and no matter what you say for the
most part this holds as true today as then. Of course scientists are trying
to artificially attempt to alter this but of course this requires
*intelligent* intervention, something which can not be allowed in the true
theory of evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 04:27:29 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gcs1sd1c2p28@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
First, I said family was the closest, second, evolutionists can keep
changing the terms as they please.
On what grounds do you decare family the "closest" to the Biblical "Kind"?
How do you defind "kind"? Second, terms are not changed on a whim. The
decision to reclassify humans and apes in the same family is based on
comparison of many factors, including morphology, metabolism and genetic
structure.
Third, biblical *kinds* appears to be a
classification of the ability to breed and no matter what you say for the
most part this holds as true today as then.
Then the Biblical "kind" would be closer to "species", as for the vast
majority of sexually reproducing organisms. Family is much to high a taxon
for interbreeding. Of course, you have to explain why, if speices borders
can't be crossed, why organisms cross that border quite often.
Of course scientists are trying
to artificially attempt to alter this but of course this requires
*intelligent* intervention, something which can not be allowed in the true
theory of evolution.
Scientists have successfully exchanged genes from organisms from entirely
separate kingdoms. However genetic engineering is not evolution. Evolution
proceeds by speciation, ie from branching of new species from ancestrial
populations. We don't see direct family/family crossings, because that's
not the locus of evolutionary change.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 09:53:38 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 21:27:29 +0000 (UTC), "Dana Tweedy"
<reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote:
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108gcs1sd1c2p28@corp.supernews.com...
snipping
First, I said family was the closest, second, evolutionists can keep
changing the terms as they please.
On what grounds do you decare family the "closest" to the Biblical "Kind"?
You didn't ask me, but let's see: Order is too big, at least for
mammals. (Might be fine for other groups, though. I suspect the
taxonomic unit corresponding to "Kind" becomes larger as one moves
further from humans.)
Species is too small, now that creationists have mostly dropped their
insistence on fixity of species.
Genus might work, but then there's the pesky matter of fitting
representatives of all extant and extinct genera on the ark.
That leaves Family as a compromise position, provided one avoids
thinking too hard.
Seriously, though, Family might come pretty close to the original
understanding of the Biblical "Kind". You've got the cat kind, the dog
kind, the bear kind, the camel kind, the cow kind ...
(Oops. The cow kind includes sheep and goats. Oh well, remember not to
think too hard.)
This is sometimes disparaged as "Kindergarten Classification", but for
everyday layman usage and (possibly) for the purposes of scripture, it
is Good Enough. Is it adequate for biology? No -- hence Linnaeus's
efforts, among others before and since.
How do you defind "kind"?
ISTM that the modern creationist usage of "kind" is essentially
indistinguishable from "clade". There's the relatively (?) recent
attempt to make "Biblical Kinds" sound more scientific by calling them
baramins, along with various subordinate terms such as "holobaramin",
"monobaramin", "apobaramin".
As I understand it, monobaramins and holobaramins _are_ clades, and
baraminologists acknowledge common descent within them. Larger
groupings from standard taxonomy, however, are termed "apobaramins",
with the claim that members are _not_ derived by common descent from a
single ancestral group. So far as I can tell, the only reason for
deciding that one group is a monobaramin (aka clade) and a slighly
more inclusive group is an apobaramin is the Authority of the Official
Baraminology Interpretation of the Bible. (And, of course, if the
Official Biblical Interpretation says that sheep and goats were
created separately, that's all there is to it. No need to examine
empirical evidence.)
So the only real difference between, say, baramin and clade is that
the baraminologists insert an arbitrary line. On one side, within a
holobaramin, the patterns of the multiple nested hierarchy are
perfectly good evidence for common descent, and one can infer patterns
of descent through various subordinate monobaramins. On the other side
of the arbitrary line, the _same sort of observations_ are no longer
evidence for common descent. (Why not? Because We Say So.)
Second, terms are not changed on a whim. The
decision to reclassify humans and apes in the same family is based on
comparison of many factors, including morphology, metabolism and genetic
structure.
Third, biblical *kinds* appears to be a
classification of the ability to breed and no matter what you say for the
most part this holds as true today as then.
Then the Biblical "kind" would be closer to "species", as for the vast
majority of sexually reproducing organisms. Family is much to high a taxon
for interbreeding.
AIUI, the baraminologists accept interfertility as positive evidence
that two groups belong in a monobaramin, but do not consider absence
of interfertility as evidence against monobaraminic relationship.
Of course, you have to explain why, if speices borders
can't be crossed, why organisms cross that border quite often.
Of course scientists are trying
to artificially attempt to alter this but of course this requires
*intelligent* intervention, something which can not be allowed in the true
theory of evolution.
Scientists have successfully exchanged genes from organisms from entirely
separate kingdoms. However genetic engineering is not evolution. Evolution
proceeds by speciation, ie from branching of new species from ancestrial
populations. We don't see direct family/family crossings, because that's
not the locus of evolutionary change.
DJT
--
Frank F. Smith
email: frankf at zoom hyphen dsl dot com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank F. Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 04:16:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:49:26 +0000 (UTC), RobinGoodfellow
<lmucduff@yahoo.com> wrote:
Randy Story wrote:
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:AyVhc.18680$l75.2837@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108fqtksr5lnl40@corp.supernews.com...
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
<snip>
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont
breed outside families.
Randy, the vast majority of sexually reproducing organisms don't breed
outside of their own species. Only a few closely related species are able
to
interbreed withing their genus, and very few cross generic matches produce
offspring at all, and none fertile. Are you claiming that ability to
interbreed is the hallmark of "kind"? If so, "species" would be more
appropriate, but then there's that little problem is that the speciation
has been observed.
Also, are you aware that humans and other great apes are members of the
same family? Are you also aware we have intermediary fossils
at and above the "family" level, showing that families are not a fixed taxon?
Dana, you need to look again. Primates are of only the same order. Humans,
apes & chimps are totally different familys. Try again.
This is technically true (humans belong to Hominidae, chimps belong
Pondigae).
Maybe depends which taxonomist you ask? See, e.g.,
http://www.tolweb.org/tree?group=Hominidae&contgroup=Catarrhini
(and that's partly the point -- designating a particular taxon above
the species level as "Family" or "Subfamily" or whatever is a
more-or-less arbitrary judgement call)
However, following recent DNA studies, scientists are
suggesting that not only do chimps belong in the same family as humans,
but they belong to the genus Homo as well. Current genetic analysis
shows 99.4% similarity between the functional genes of humans and chimps
- bringing chimps closer to humans than they are to other great apes.
See, for instance,
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993744
While classing chimps into the genus homo is not agreed upon, this is
just one demonstration that the notion of family is simply a
classification construct based on observed genotypic and phenotypic
features, and by no means a fixed genetic boundary that, for some
mysterious, unspecified, and unevidenced reason, can never be crossed by
evolutionary processes. Whatever your "baramin" (created kind) is, a
family it ain't.
--
Frank F. Smith
email: frankf at zoom hyphen dsl dot com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hank" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 01:12:39 PM |
|
|
Randy Story wrote:
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote
in message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
it.)
--
Assimilate a pitiful little species like you? I think not! - Q of Borg
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Monrad" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 01:49:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Hank posted in article
<40880AB3.73A359AE@Company.com>...
Randy Story wrote:
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
it.)
I was thinking eastern Kentucky...
Beyond that -- I'd like him to describe the organisms that for the least
part *do* breed outside of families.
--
John Monrad
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 06:08:49 PM |
|
|
John Monrad <jrmonrad@att.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Hank posted in article
<40880AB3.73A359AE@Company.com>...
Randy Story wrote:
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part dont breed
outside families.
And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody had to say
it.)
I was thinking eastern Kentucky...
Beyond that -- I'd like him to describe the organisms that for the least
part *do* breed outside of families.
Endosymbiotic capture? Commensualism in lichens? I'm trying...
--
John Wilkins
john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au http://www.wilkins.id.au
"Men mark it when they hit, but do not mark it when they miss"
- Francis Bacon
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Monrad" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 09:50:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:08:49 +0000 (UTC), John Wilkins posted in article
<1gcorc0.mvxmscilutzhN%john_SPAM@wilkins.id.au>...
John Monrad <jrmonrad@att.net.invalid> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 18:12:39 +0000 (UTC), Hank posted in article
<40880AB3.73A359AE@Company.com>...
Randy Story wrote:
"Eric Gill" <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns94D344F50A69Fericvgillyahoocom@24.93.44.119...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com:
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro
then I will simply say that there is no evolution at all. All
we see is *change* withins kinds or families.
Indeed? Then "families" is the definition of "kinds?"
It is probably as close a we can get, things for the most part
dont breed outside families.
And what part of West Virginia are you from? (Aw hell somebody
had to say it.)
I was thinking eastern Kentucky...
Beyond that -- I'd like him to describe the organisms that for the
least part *do* breed outside of families.
Endosymbiotic capture? Commensualism in lichens? I'm trying...
<Groucho>Not as trying as these creationists</Groucho>
I'm just a lowly geochemist/metamorphic petrologist, but I think you're
pushing the envelope on what one might consider to be breeding (although
I suspect what my dog tries to do with my leg might be considered a
valiant attempt). But pehaps we should ask Harter...
It is fascinatring, though, to think that the chore or pleasure of
perpetuating one's identity can be assisted by the efforts of some
distant relative, 3800 my removed, who figured out how not to be eaten.
--
John Monrad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 10:37:35 AM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins
kinds or families.
Evolution is change. Also, can you tell us what is your defintion of
"kind"?
Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
Evolution is not an upward, or downward process.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in
sceintific
circles.
Evolution, in the strictest sense, means change in the genetic make up of a
population over generations. Any change in an organism is not evolution,
but evolution is most definitely change.
Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
Creationists can no longer deny that. Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact, Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roadrunner" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 11:37:34 AM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:NHRhc.18532$l75.10175@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108elr957sp697e@corp.supernews.com...
"Fredric L. Rice de Rothschild" <FredR@SkepticTank.REMOVE.ORG> wrote in
message news:108eg66puqfn29d@corp.supernews.com...
DaveinIllinois@webtv.net wrote:
"Scientists who go about teaching that (macro)
evolution is a fact of life are great con-men
Written by a religious kook speaking outside of his area of science.
In fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to
belief or disbelief. At the same time there's no such thing as
"macro evolution." There is only evolution: both the observed fact
of evolution and a number of closely related theories which attempt
to describe the observed phenomena.
Try opening a text book once instead of blindly following what
your cult masters program into you.
Since you wont allow the distinction between micro & macro then I will
simply say that there is no evolution at all. All we see is *change*
withins
kinds or families.
Evolution is change. Also, can you tell us what is your defintion of
"kind"?
Change is not necessarly upward or downward, just change.
Evolution is not an upward, or downward process.
The word change and evolution are definitely not the same idea in
sceintific
circles.
Evolution, in the strictest sense, means change in the genetic make up of
a
population over generations. Any change in an organism is not evolution,
but evolution is most definitely change.
Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
Creationists can no longer deny that.
Did they ever? Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
occurs, no?
Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact, Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
science in that though.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 02:42:41 PM |
|
|
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:8AShc.90516$dP1.274587@newsc.telia.net...
snipping
Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time, even
Creationists can no longer deny that.
Did they ever?
Yes. Early creationists claimed that species were fixed, and could never
change.
Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
occurs, no?
Yes, and it's been so well established that even Creationists can no longer
deny this fact. What they are trying to deny now is that microevolution and
macroevolution are basically the same process. The only real difference is
time.
Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact,
Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
science in that though.
That evolution occurs is a statement of fact. Even Creationists will admit,
if cornered, that evolution occurs. Creationists now try to draw a false
distinction between micro and macro.
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Randy Story" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:02:58 PM |
|
|
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xhVhc.18675$l75.14530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:8AShc.90516$dP1.274587@newsc.telia.net...
snipping
Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time,
even
Creationists can no longer deny that.
Did they ever?
Yes. Early creationists claimed that species were fixed, and could never
change.
Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
occurs, no?
Yes, and it's been so well established that even Creationists can no
longer
deny this fact. What they are trying to deny now is that microevolution
and
macroevolution are basically the same process. The only real difference
is
time.
Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact,
Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have to
admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
science in that though.
That evolution occurs is a statement of fact. Even Creationists will
admit,
if cornered, that evolution occurs. Creationists now try to draw a false
distinction between micro and macro.
No crossover between family or kind level, its a fact. as I pointed out in
your psot saying that apes and humans are the same family. They are not!
Look it up!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ??? |
22 Apr 2004 03:31:55 PM |
|
|
"Randy Story" <rstorynw@olypen.com> wrote in message
news:108g9dd18q1n6cb@corp.supernews.com...
"Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@Nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xhVhc.18675$l75.14530@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Roadrunner" <pegasus@privat.utfors.se> wrote in message
news:8AShc.90516$dP1.274587@newsc.telia.net...
snipping
Yes Fred, all things change, gee if that was the whole debate no
one would have a problem. Time to rethink!!
Basically, that is the whole debate. Organisms change over time,
even
Creationists can no longer deny that.
Did they ever?
Yes. Early creationists claimed that species were fixed, and could
never
change.
Logic and observation learned us that micro evolution
occurs, no?
Yes, and it's been so well established that even Creationists can no
longer
deny this fact. What they are trying to deny now is that microevolution
and
macroevolution are basically the same process. The only real difference
is
time.
Now they are just trying to say
"This far and no farther". Evolution is a scientific fact,
Creationists
are just trying to limit the amount of evolution so they don't have
to
admit
our relationship with the rest of nature.
So, let's determine then that this is your personal opinion, not much
science in that though.
That evolution occurs is a statement of fact. Even Creationists will
admit,
if cornered, that evolution occurs. Creationists now try to draw a
false
distinction between micro and macro.
No crossover between family or kind level, its a fact.
No, it's an assertion, and a false one at that. I've already shown you
fossil evidence of transitionals above the family level.
as I pointed out in
your psot saying that apes and humans are the same family. They are not!
Look it up!
I did. Not surprisingly, you were wrong. Humans and other apes are
classified as members of Homindiae. Look it up yourself. So, do you
really want to keep declaring your ignorance?
DJT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Forrest" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution is a proven fact ...is it not ???</ | | | | | | | |
