| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MsAnthrope" |
| Date: |
03 Feb 2005 08:41:57 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Is Anyone Here an ADVENTIST?! |
In article <1107423912.431243.254020@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Orion7
says...
Don't you know evolution is a farce? You are obviously a product of the
brain washing which goes on in our Schools, Colleges and Universities.
I have seen the desperate lengths these Professors and Scientists go to
make people believe in evolution, even fabricating evidence to support
their unsupportable theories.
1st Rule of Creationism: Ignored evidence will go away
2nd Rule of Creationism: Interpret any challenge as personal insult
3rd Rule of Creationism: Claim evidence then quietly slip away
4th Rule of Creationism: Don't be confused by facts
5th Rule of Creationism: Insist that science ignores your proof
6th Rule of Creationism: Claim superiority for Christian education.
7th Rule of Creationism: Always appear to know more than you do.
8th Rule of Creationism: Shift the burden of proof to your critics.
9th Rule of Creationism: Lying for the Lord is okay.
10th Rule of Creationism: Never acknowledge your demonstrated errors
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 12:51:01 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:6opi11lkgmu6l19v9kudqf5h0jokugqvhe@4ax.com...
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
Although the sickle cell is resistant to malaria, the unfortunate ones who carry it
are burdened with a life characterized by episodes of pain, weakness, infections
and early death unless receiving first world medical care.
In any family in which both parents carry one sickle-cell gene each,
for each 4 children 1 child will be born with no trait, one will be
born with the disease and 2 will be born with a single gene - no
disease.
In a family without the gene, all children will be born susceptible to
malaria. In areas in which sickle-cell is common, *no one* without
one sickle-cell gene lives past childhood, meaning that no one born
without 1 sickle-cell gene will survive to reproduce.
How do you think they survived to reproduce in
the infested areas before the mutation occurred?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
21 Feb 2005 01:18:27 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 22:51:01 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:6opi11lkgmu6l19v9kudqf5h0jokugqvhe@4ax.com...
In a family without the gene, all children will be born susceptible to
malaria. In areas in which sickle-cell is common, *no one* without
one sickle-cell gene lives past childhood, meaning that no one born
without 1 sickle-cell gene will survive to reproduce.
How do you think they survived to reproduce in
the infested areas before the mutation occurred?
Most likely they didn't. The mutation may have occurred before people
migrated to the area. They may have migrated to the area, then the
mutation occurred, but there was no rampant malaria in the area yet.
I'm not sure how old the mutation is (I could look it up, but it's
late, and I'm going to have a lot of snow to clean off the driveway in
the morning) so I can't compare migration times with the age of the
mutation.
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:20:51 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations,
'improvements' are inevidable.
Thi s is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are
seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary
theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations.
Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
That "we" know about he says! What a joke.
" 1. Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell
estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per
generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant
effect, most are harmful, but a significant fraction are
beneficial. The harmful mutations do not survive long, and
the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you
consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
" 2. Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are
common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic
resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide
resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997;
these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.)
They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations
(Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon
(Prijambada et al. 1995). Plant breeders have used mutation
breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones
(FAO/IAEA 1977). Certain mutations in humans confer
resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996) or to heart disease
(Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983). A mutation in humans
makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002). Transposons are
common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial
diversity (Moffat 2000). In vitro mutation and selection
can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA
molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
" 3. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on
environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one
circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment
changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly
become favored. Since environments are constantly changing,
variation helps populations survive, even if some of those
variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial
mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally
sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
" 4. High mutation rates are advantageous in some
environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa
are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis
patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase
selection pressure and variability, than in patients without
cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
" 5. Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is
a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris
1974, 13)."
References: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:00:30 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations,
'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are
seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary
theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations.
Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Andrew
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 11:36:15 PM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2005 11:00:30 -0800, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in
alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
And this isn't even due to the old food source disappearing. A frame
shift occurred and the new species could survive. Period. Not
"fittest", just "fit enough".
--
If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones
- Carl Sagan, 1987.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 12:51:10 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:ra5r01h9fppb11s16q7pd8kiraa6taclv3@4ax.com...
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
What could happen? Bacteria, that's what.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:03:16 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:ra5r01h9fppb11s16q7pd8kiraa6taclv3@4ax.com...
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
What could happen? Bacteria, that's what.
Andrew
andrew why did you ignore my questions about protists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:31:38 AM |
|
|
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote in news:1108191796.691399.109410
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Andrew wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message
news:ra5r01h9fppb11s16q7pd8kiraa6taclv3@4ax.com...
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
What could happen? Bacteria, that's what.
Andrew
andrew why did you ignore my questions about protists?
He doesn't understand the question?
--
Enkidu AA# 2165
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Attributed to Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:17:17 AM |
|
|
In article <375narF599p9kU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:ra5r01h9fppb11s16q7pd8kiraa6taclv3@4ax.com...
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
What could happen? Bacteria, that's what.
Andrew
Those who declare things to be impossible often find themselves made
fools of by later discoveries and inventions.
Almost every invention of note of the 20th century was declared to be
impossible by someone, often someone of considerable reputation, who
suffered greatly when he was shown to be wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 09:01:13 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:51:10 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" wrote in message news:ra5r01h9fppb11s16q7pd8kiraa6taclv3@4ax.com...
"snex" <snex@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
And it all took place in no more than 70 years! What could have
happened in 70 million years? Or 3.5 BILLION years?
What could happen? Bacteria, that's what.
And animals and plants could also evolve. Why can it happen in one
kingdom but not another?
--
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of
themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
- Bertrand Russell
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:12:07 PM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2005 11:00:30 -0800, "snex" <snex@comcast.net> wrote:
Andrew wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations,
'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are
seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary
theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations.
Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Andrew
andrew has fallen for the grand hoax of creationism! andrew, if
mutations are always harmful (or neutral as you even admitted to
earlier), how do you explain the following?
He can't. And I'll lay odds he'll either change the subject or decline
to reply at all.
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:32:42 PM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Here is a paste of one of my first posts to usenet, in 97, which
addresses this point.
You sound as if you think evolutionist think beneficial mutations
are common. Allow me to put this in some perspective.
Imagine a species with a billion individuals living at one time.
(Pick your favorite plant or animal.)
Lets say that 1% of these individuals produce some inheritable
mutation that they pass on to their offspring.
That's 10 million mutations this generation.
If this species is somewhat like us, 90% of their DNA
is non operational baggage so only 10% of the mutations have any
immediate effect on the next generation.
We're down to 1 million effective mutations per generation.
Now, assume that 99.9% of these mutations are negative or harmful
to the offspring (you know about birth defects, right?)
This means that these mutations either kill
the offspring or seriously to slightly lessen their chances
of successfully surviving to reproduce.
That leaves us with .1% of 1 million or 1000 non negative mutations
per generation.
Of these, lets say that 99.9% have such slight effect
that they may be considered to be neutral in
their effect on survivability and breeding.
That leaves us with 1 definitely positive mutation
in a generation of a billion individuals.
And this one may get stepped on by its mother.
The point is that the number of positive mutations can be very small,
and still countless generations will amplify the number
of individuals carrying better genetic capabilities and will steadily
thin those individuals with genetics that do not work as well for
them,
so that almost any accumulated modification is possible in the
future population. The biggest difficulty is truly imagining what can
happen in millions of years when we only live 10s of years.
But the evidence left in the earth leaves no other logical conclusion
than to face the this temporal contrast.
(end paste)
The combination of reproduction and death is a very powerful force
toward amplifying the useful improvements and discarding
the immensely larger number of less than useful mutations.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:42:44 PM |
|
|
In article <420D085A.4B7401FD@rica.net> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:
Andrew wrote:
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Here is a paste of one of my first posts to usenet, in 97, which
addresses this point.
You sound as if you think evolutionist think beneficial mutations
are common. Allow me to put this in some perspective.
Imagine a species with a billion individuals living at one time.
(Pick your favorite plant or animal.)
Lets say that 1% of these individuals produce some inheritable
mutation that they pass on to their offspring.
That's 10 million mutations this generation.
If this species is somewhat like us, 90% of their DNA
is non operational baggage so only 10% of the mutations have any
immediate effect on the next generation.
We're down to 1 million effective mutations per generation.
Now, assume that 99.9% of these mutations are negative or harmful
to the offspring (you know about birth defects, right?)
This means that these mutations either kill
the offspring or seriously to slightly lessen their chances
of successfully surviving to reproduce.
That leaves us with .1% of 1 million or 1000 non negative mutations
per generation.
Of these, lets say that 99.9% have such slight effect
that they may be considered to be neutral in
their effect on survivability and breeding.
That leaves us with 1 definitely positive mutation
in a generation of a billion individuals.
And this one may get stepped on by its mother.
The point is that the number of positive mutations can be very small,
and still countless generations will amplify the number
of individuals carrying better genetic capabilities and will steadily
thin those individuals with genetics that do not work as well for
them,
so that almost any accumulated modification is possible in the
future population. The biggest difficulty is truly imagining what can
happen in millions of years when we only live 10s of years.
But the evidence left in the earth leaves no other logical conclusion
than to face the this temporal contrast.
(end paste)
The combination of reproduction and death is a very powerful force
toward amplifying the useful improvements and discarding
the immensely larger number of less than useful mutations.
Nicely said.
(do you ever look at your old posts and think "geez, I was better
back then"?)
Since the rate of mis-copying as roughly one per million,
and given that we have around three billion base pairs,
it seems to me that we must all be mutants.
In which case, I want to know when my secret super-power
will be cutting in. All I know is that I looked like
Ororo Munroe, I'd never leave my room.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 05:17:09 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
(snip)
The combination of reproduction and death is a very powerful force
toward amplifying the useful improvements and discarding
the immensely larger number of less than useful mutations.
Nicely said.
(do you ever look at your old posts and think "geez, I was better
back then"?)
I may have been more patient, then, but I have a spell checker, now.
:)
Since the rate of mis-copying as roughly one per million,
and given that we have around three billion base pairs,
it seems to me that we must all be mutants.
I once heard an estimate that every human carries, on average, 10
point mutations that it did not inherit from either parent, in every
cell of their bodies. In addition, mutations continue to accumulate
as the fertilized egg divides and grows into a mature adult. Along
that path, there is a fair chance that the cells in your left hand
have become different by a couple mutations from the cells in your
right hand. And in tissue that continues to have a high rate of cell
division, like skin and intestinal lining, even more mutations
accumulate. This is one of the reasons those tissues are most fertile
for cancer to develop.
This is also the reason that fruit tree growers are always looking for
single branches that produce fruit different from what the rest of the
tree produces (that branch is called a sport). You don't need whole
generations of the entire plant or animal for evolution to produce
something novel, you need only asexual cell division. With
reproduction methods like cuttings and grafting artificially applied,
those mutations can be reproduced without sexual reproduction.
It is possible in principle (and, perhaps, soon in practice) to
produce a novel adult individual from a single mutated cell.
In which case, I want to know when my secret super-power
will be cutting in. All I know is that I looked like
Ororo Munroe, I'd never leave my room.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 05:31:35 PM |
|
|
In article <420D3CF5.C035CB8D@rica.net> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:
(snip)
The combination of reproduction and death is a very powerful force
toward amplifying the useful improvements and discarding
the immensely larger number of less than useful mutations.
Nicely said.
(do you ever look at your old posts and think "geez, I was better
back then"?)
I may have been more patient, then, but I have a spell checker, now.
:)
Since the rate of mis-copying as roughly one per million,
and given that we have around three billion base pairs,
it seems to me that we must all be mutants.
I once heard an estimate that every human carries, on average, 10
point mutations that it did not inherit from either parent, in every
cell of their bodies. In addition, mutations continue to accumulate
as the fertilized egg divides and grows into a mature adult. Along
that path, there is a fair chance that the cells in your left hand
have become different by a couple mutations from the cells in your
right hand. And in tissue that continues to have a high rate of cell
division, like skin and intestinal lining, even more mutations
accumulate. This is one of the reasons those tissues are most fertile
for cancer to develop.
Even as I was writing that, I started wondering about that very
subject -- somatic mutations. Of course these aren't relevant
to Andrew's contention that such things are bad bad bad, but
still, it is nice to be able to say "But we're ALL mutants,
Professor Xavier!"
This is also the reason that fruit tree growers are always looking for
single branches that produce fruit different from what the rest of the
tree produces (that branch is called a sport). You don't need whole
generations of the entire plant or animal for evolution to produce
something novel, you need only asexual cell division. With
reproduction methods like cuttings and grafting artificially applied,
those mutations can be reproduced without sexual reproduction.
I seem to recall hearing something on NPR about a decade ago, having
to do with a citrus grower who had noticed a (I believe) seedless
grapefruit among his crop -- and realizing that SOMEWHERE out
there among the thousands of trees was one that would make
him rich, if only he could somehow find it.
From what you say, finding just the magic tree might not have
been specific enough.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 02:03:19 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 19:42:44 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <420D085A.4B7401FD@rica.net> John Popelish <jpopelish@rica.net> writes:
Andrew wrote:
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Here is a paste of one of my first posts to usenet, in 97, which
addresses this point.
You sound as if you think evolutionist think beneficial mutations
are common. Allow me to put this in some perspective.
Imagine a species with a billion individuals living at one time.
(Pick your favorite plant or animal.)
Lets say that 1% of these individuals produce some inheritable
mutation that they pass on to their offspring.
That's 10 million mutations this generation.
If this species is somewhat like us, 90% of their DNA
is non operational baggage so only 10% of the mutations have any
immediate effect on the next generation.
We're down to 1 million effective mutations per generation.
Now, assume that 99.9% of these mutations are negative or harmful
to the offspring (you know about birth defects, right?)
This means that these mutations either kill
the offspring or seriously to slightly lessen their chances
of successfully surviving to reproduce.
That leaves us with .1% of 1 million or 1000 non negative mutations
per generation.
Of these, lets say that 99.9% have such slight effect
that they may be considered to be neutral in
their effect on survivability and breeding.
That leaves us with 1 definitely positive mutation
in a generation of a billion individuals.
And this one may get stepped on by its mother.
The point is that the number of positive mutations can be very small,
and still countless generations will amplify the number
of individuals carrying better genetic capabilities and will steadily
thin those individuals with genetics that do not work as well for
them,
so that almost any accumulated modification is possible in the
future population. The biggest difficulty is truly imagining what can
happen in millions of years when we only live 10s of years.
But the evidence left in the earth leaves no other logical conclusion
than to face the this temporal contrast.
(end paste)
The combination of reproduction and death is a very powerful force
toward amplifying the useful improvements and discarding
the immensely larger number of less than useful mutations.
Nicely said.
(do you ever look at your old posts and think "geez, I was better
back then"?)
Oh, yeah. <G>
Since the rate of mis-copying as roughly one per million,
and given that we have around three billion base pairs,
it seems to me that we must all be mutants.
In which case, I want to know when my secret super-power
will be cutting in. All I know is that I looked like
Ororo Munroe, I'd never leave my room.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 05:52:43 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:55:45 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information.
Define "information".
Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Blatantly false.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:19:34 PM |
|
|
In article <374ddfF58t8cgU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"snex" wrote in message news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information.
Mutations change information. In some cases, mutations add
new information. This can be either useful, neutral, or
deleterious.
Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations.
Evolutionary theory is contingent -- in part -- on beneficial
mutations. (in sexual organisms it is far more dependent
on recombination)
Mutations that we know about are detrimental to a species.
I've given elsewhere an example of a recent mutation which
opened up a new, plentiful, and completely uncontested source
of food for the organism which underwent this mutation (the
nylon-eating microbe).
But more importantly, mutatations may be beneficial or harmful
in context, not in isolation. That mutation to the gene which
produces human hemoglobin which lead to the variant hemoglobin
which causes sickling of red blood cells is either harmful
on the balance or useful on the balance, depending on whether
you live and reproduce in a malaria infested region of the
world or you do not.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 02:25:57 PM |
|
|
In article <374ddfF58t8cgU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are
inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Andrew
It is true that most mutations are either neutral or injurious, but not
all of them. Even those that are apparently injurious may confer some
advantages in the natural selection stakes.
Consider sickle cell anemia, for example. If that is the best defence
against sleeping sickness that an intelligent designer can come up with,
it is not a very good ad for its intelligence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 02:44:29 PM |
|
|
In article <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil-55376D.13255711022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com> Virgil <ITSnetNOTcom#virgil@COMCAST.com> writes:
In article <374ddfF58t8cgU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"snex" wrote in message
news:1108146903.939510.286860@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are
inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
Andrew
no this is the observed fact! improvements through mutations are seen
even today.
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Andrew
It is true that most mutations are either neutral or injurious, but not
all of them. Even those that are apparently injurious may confer some
advantages in the natural selection stakes.
Consider sickle cell anemia, for example. If that is the best defence
against sleeping sickness that an intelligent designer can come up with,
it is not a very good ad for its intelligence.
I believe you mean "malaria", not sleeping sickness, but your basic
argument is certainly sound. Why indeed?
Ironically, it's a single mutation of a single gene in
_Trypanosoma brucei gambiense _, the organism which causes sleeping
sickness, which enables it to infect humans. The apparent
ancestor, _T. brucei brucei_, lacks this mutation, and is not
able to infect humans, falling prey to an immune system
factor named Trypanosome Lytic Factor. One single mutation
to the relevant gene in _T.brucei burcei_ and voila:
it is now resistant to TLF, and can infect humans with sleeping sickness.
This is another example of a mutation which was most certainly
"an improvement" -- if you're a trypanosome. It allows you
to exploit a whole new species, human beings.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MsAnthrope" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 04:39:05 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:55:45 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
Mutations destroy, delete and garble information. Evolutionary theory
is dependent upon continuous, helpful, beneficial mutations. Mutations
that we know about are detrimental to a species.
Detrimental means resulting in fewer offspring. If a mutation results
in a species having more offspring then it is not detrimental.
--
MsAnthrope
http://web.newsguy.com/rubyred
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 05:52:21 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Fri, 11 Feb 2005 10:30:14 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
The hoax is believing that there is a god.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 03:41:41 AM |
|
|
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory, it is a faith or belief system because it
was never observed, and is not repeatable and thus verifiable.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:07:44 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements'
are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory, it is a faith or belief system because it
was never observed, and is not repeatable and thus verifiable.
Andrew
you are not using the correct definition of the word theory. a
scientific theory is extremely highly confirmed, so by admitting that
the theory of evolution is a theory, you agree that it has been
confirmed. and while we cannot directly observe a "frog turning into a
man," we can observe the evidence to see if such a thing could have
happened. fossils and genetics both agree that it could. if something
in the past cannot be observed, how do you propose we convict murderers
for which there was no eyewitnesses?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "snex" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 10:09:31 AM |
|
|
Andrew wrote:
"Virgil" wrote in message
news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-E7F9D3.00130512022005@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
"Al Klein" wrote:
"Andrew" said in alt.atheism:
So frogs do become men in the sense that they share a common
ancestor.
Much the same way that modified cars become airplanes, for the
same reason.
The statement is technically true if it is acknowledged that
it takes a whole
lot of steps which may involve multi-billions of years. Is
this correct?
No, it's not even incorrect. It's incoherent.
I agree. It never happened!
Andrew
Actually cars have been modified into airplanes. Back when theaters
showed newsreels there were one or two a year showing up in those
newsreels, except during WWII, of course. So it did happen....
True, and how did such come about? -----> by the application
of design and intelligent engineering, not by random processes.
Andrew
it came about through trial and error. modifications were made, tested,
and then refined. the only difference between that and evolution is
that the modifications were not random and the selection was decided by
humans. you have been told several times that nature makes random
modifications (mutations) and then selects them based on their
reproducibility. you have yet to tell us why there is a barrier on this
process.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 07:30:51 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:41:41 -0800, "Andrew"
<andrew.321remov@usa.net> let us all know that:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory,
Yes, it is a theory. And evolution has been observed. I'm glad
that you agree.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 01:54:29 PM |
|
|
In article <3761ajF593hnnU1@individual.net>,
"Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message
news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are
inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory,
Generalizations in science, such as the theory of relativity and quantum
theory are never 'more' than theories, because a well tested theory in
science is as good as it gets.
To downgrade an idea because it is a scientific theory is to demonstrate
one's ignorance of science.
That the word 'theory' is used pejoratively outside of science is
irrelevant to its scientific meaning.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
13 Feb 2005 01:32:48 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:41:41 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
said in alt.atheism:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory, it is a faith or belief system
You just contradicted yourself, Andy - theories don't depend on faith
or belief.
because it was never observed
Evolution is observed every day.
and is not repeatable
Doesn't have to be.
and thus verifiable.
Seeing it happen verifies it.
--
"Christianity has already had the chance to govern
the world according to its own ethical standards.
It was called the "Dark Ages".
- Bill, The Avender
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
12 Feb 2005 11:05:25 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 01:41:41 -0800, "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net>
wrote:
"Don Kresch" wrote in message news:a4hq019pkgs3p2qdllsncdik61c1tp2iqb@4ax.com...
"Andrew" let us all know that:
"Virgil" wrote:
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'.
Yes, it is.
Not only is it a theory, it is a faith or belief system because it
was never observed, and is not repeatable and thus verifiable.
Umm...Andy...? Don't these objections apply to creation as well? <G>
Never mind that evolution *has* been observed and documented. Even if
it hadn't, do you honestly believe that nothing that hasn't been
directly observed can ever be verified beyond reasonable doubt?
One word, Andy. Forensics.
Here's a very simple analogy for you to ponder, Andrew. Do you believe
that in a criminal investigation, a suspect's guilt can be reliably
established beyond reasonable doubt by careful examination of forensic
evidence even though there were no witnesses to the crime? Yes or no.
If you do believe this, does it not follow that the certainty of
evolution can also be reliably established beyond reasonable doubt by
the same sort of careful examination of the available evidence (i.e.
the fossil record, genetics, homology, nested hierarchies, etc.)?
On the other hand, if you *don't* believe the reality of evolution can
be positively established based on examination of evidence, do you
then advocate the immediate release of all inmates currently in prison
who were convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence? After
all, no one saw them commit the crime. It wasn't observed, is not
repeatable, and therefore can't be verified, correct? <G>
And don't whine about those two examples not being the same thing,
Andrew. They're *exactly* the same thing. Establishing the truth or
falsity of any proposition based on examination of available evidence
is no different at all, whether it be the guilt of a defendant in a
criminal trial or a natural process such as evolution.
Now, answer the question. If you dare.
Andrew
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Objective Evidence |
11 Feb 2005 01:06:39 PM |
|
|
In article <374btqF52nrluU1@individual.net> "Andrew" <andrew.321remov@usa.net> writes:
"Virgil" wrote in message news:ITSnetNOTcom%23virgil-
Over billions of years and millions of mutations, 'improvements' are inevidable.
This is the 'theory'...but it's actually part of the hoax.
What, that improvements happen?
There was recently discovered a bacterium which can
eat nylon. This was a new feature, an "improvement",
and it was the result of the change of one single
base in a non-coding section of the organism's
DNA.
Since the world is -- suddenly, and for less than
a century -- now full of nylon, this bacterium
now has the ability to exploit a plentiful food
source that nothing else in the world eats.
I'd call that an iprovement.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
