Ray Martinez wrote:
Budikka wrote:
My heart bleeds for you. Don't post so many messages if you can't keep
up with them. And yes, you *are* running away. You failed to address
the points I raised in any way shape or form.
Those points were deliberately spammed into the debate in order to
evade the OP.
I've been dealing with the **lack** of evidence in your OP since my
message of November 3rd in this thread, but **you keep running away
from everything I've said about it, don't you**? Which part of that is
it that's beyond your reading comprehension level?
I plainly said in the OP I will not tolerate evasion of evidence and
argument. You are now officially guilty = inability to refute.
There was **nothing** to refute. All you did was make assertions.
**You didn't support a signle thing you said**. But do please do allow
me to *****-slap you with it again and deal with it point-by-point
right in your face right here right now, okay?
[blathering introduction snipped. There was nothing in it that needed
refutation]
I want the evolutionists to answer this data
"data" is plural. There, you're refuted.
[Rest of para snipped - are you ever going to make a point or are you
just going to ramble on tediously about your intention to make a point?
There has been nothing up to this point in your OP that is either
supported or needs refutation.]
Macroevolution: "The belief that living things originate from other
living things and not ultimately from the God of Genesis" [source:
paraphrase Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D. Stanford University]
This is not the defintiion of evolution. Evolution is a change in
allele frquency in a given population. Period. Got that?
Macroevolution is simply accumulated microevolution. Got that? Now if
you object to this, then point me to the peer-reviewed paper in a
refereed science journal which establishes scientifically that there is
a qualitative or significant difference between these two terms.
Speciation, the bottom tier of so-called macroevolution has been
observed in the wild and in the lab:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
There, you're refuted.
[Meaningless drivel from thoroughly discredited Michael Behe deleted:
http://tinyurl.com/8u3jd
There was nothing in that section that is either supported or needs
refutation.]
This Usenet or any Internet debate board contain endless amount of
topics asserting macroevolution a fact based upon the folllowing logic:
1. "Micro is an undisputed fact, therefore the build-up accounts for
macroevolution."
Do you intend to refute this by simply restating it? I specifically
addressed this issue in those 615 references to examples supportive of
so-called macroevolution **that you have been running from ever since I
listed them**. Maybe next time I refer you to somehting you'll be
smart enough to go examine it and see what it says before you start
flapping ignorantly about it, huh?
Can you point to a peer-reviewed science paper published anywhere in
the world in any refereed standard science journal that refutes
macroevolution? Can you?
There, you have been refuted.
2. "All species are transitional, therefore macroevolution is a fact."
Inference # 1 above is logical - no question.
Can you refute the fact that evolution continues today? Can you define
a "kind" - a group of organisms which cannot evolve into another
"kind"? Can you define the mechanism which prevents microevolution
from accumulating into macroevolution?
There, you have been refuted.
The second sentence is a claim, made in hindsight, based more or less
on Inference # 1. I believe, objectively described, # 2 is a
a cop-out - a recognition that macro must be assumed because there is
no geological fossil formation support or actual evidence linking
species.
Lie. Here are transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives9.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
Here is the decisive and crucial evidence which falsifies Inference #
1:
Richard Milton:
"Shattering Myths of Darwinism" [1997] Park Street Press:
PAGE 132:
"Darwin had accumulated hundreds of pieces of evidence that tended to
support his idea, but he knew it was inevitable that skeptics would
say: Show us an example of natural selection. So in the first edition
of On the Origin of Species Darwin gave one. He said, 'I can see no
difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection,
more and more acquatic in their habits, with larger and larger mouths,
till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.'
Whale evolution was admirably dealt with in "At the Water's Edge" By
Carl Zimmer:
http://tinyurl.com/d8y6d
And if there is no macroevolution, how is it that the closest living
relative of cetaceans is the hippopotamus?
http://tinyurl.com/9qwy5
There, you have been refuted.
Here we have Darwin's central idea of evolution in a nutshell: bears
can become whales, or whale-like, given enough time and enough natural
selection. One species can turn into a completely different species by
natural selection alone."
And your scientific refutation of that is? Nowhere.
So what if Darwin took it out? The chapter is replete with other
exmaples and many more have been discovered as Darwin predicted, with
new finds in the fossil record and in genetics. Stephen Gould deals
with your problem here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_leviathan.html
PAGE 133:
"Darwin changed his mind about this example after publication and
withdrew it from the second and all later editions of his book. We
don't know the exact reason why he had second thoughts and withdrew the
example, but I think it is not too difficult to see why he would have
done so.
In the first place, it is purely hypothetical rather than actual; it is
based on conjecture not on direct evidence....there are no fossils of
intermediate types and no other physical evidence, so the
transformation that Darwin at first saw as highly probable has not in
fact happened....But in dropping his example of bears evolving into
whales by NS, Darwin was dropping not just a marginal example which
could easily be jettisoned without penalty. In rejecting the acquatic
bear, he was abandoning the central proposition of his entire theory -
or at the very least was publicly displaying the kind of doubts he was
privately entertaining about the process.
He was abandoning nothing. He did not have the evidence ot support
this conjecture, but now we do have evidence demonstrating the
transitional steps from terrestrial organism to aquatic both from the
fossil record as Darwin rpedicted, and from genetics as the fossil
record predicted, so this blather is entirely irrelevant.
So what kind of influences caused Darwin to drop his example about
bears and whales ?"
Who cares? Please demonstrate how this impinges in any way, shape, or
form on the Theory of Evolution.
PAGE 134:
"Darwin was well aware of one central fact that dominated all animal
and plant breeding experiments - then and now. No one has ever bred a
new species artificially - and both plant and animal breeders have been
trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists."
No one has *tried* to breed a new species artifically, until Craig
Ventor started planning on producing an organism with the minimal
possible genes. All animal husbandry has been devoted to preserving
the breed and improving the quality of the breed, not with creating new
species, so this comment is entirely irrelevant. Husbandry has nothing
to do with the natural mechanics evolution, so your adolescent
"example" fails dismally.
You really need to stop haunting creationist web sites and read some
good science books. Seriously.
PAGE 135:
"Mayr: 'any drastic improvement under selection must seriously deplete
the store of genetic variability....The most frequent correlated
response of one-sided selection is a drop in general fitness. This
plagues virtually every breeding experiment.' [Mayr, "Animal Species
and Evolution", 1963]
This is because those orgnaisms were *designed* and poorly so, and they
were created without complete knowledge of the genome. In time these
"problems" will go away. We're already seeing evidence of this.
This limit to the amount of genetic variability available in a species,
***Mayr termed "genetic homeostasis." IT IS THE NATURAL BARRIER***
encountered not only by geneticists attempting to breed fruit flies,
and the French botanists attempting to increase the sugar PAGE 136:
content of the beetroot, but by all plant and animal breeders
throughout the ages.
How is this any sort of *barrier*? Mayr was talking about animal
husbandry, not the natural mechanics of evolution. No evolutionist
claims that new species are created by two completely different species
cross-breeding to produce a third, different from either of the
progenitors.
Evolution as a process doesn't seek to produce the best of kind.
Evolution doesn't plan. It's not an intelligence. It's not a
designer. Evolution is an opportunist. If the genes are there and the
opportunity arises, it will take an organism and fly. If not, the
organism might well become extinct. It really is that simple. You
cannot hope to understand the Theory of Evolution coming form a closed
creationist mindset.
But the fact is that we see fossil evidence and genetic evidence that
organisms have indeed changed over time. This is irrefutable. It is a
fact. How that fact is explained is what is at issue, and the Theory
of Evolution is quite simply the best explanation that has ever been
put forward, supported by 150 years of solid science. Every test the
Theory of Evolution has been put to has been passed with flying colors.
This is what the 615 examples I referred you to actually demonstrate.
**But you ran away from those, didn't you**?
Here is biologist and Christian Kenneth Miller giving evidence of this
in the trial transcript of the recent trial of so-called intelligent
so-called design in Dover Pennsylvania:
http://aclupa.org/downloads/Day1AMSession.pdf
I noted that very nearly every single one of the school board
proponents of that dumb design issue was kicked out of office in the
elections yesterday:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/09/evolution.intelligentdesign.ap/index.html
Darwin himself, as a breeder of pigeons and other animals was aware
that the amount of variability available was limited. And although
Darwin afterwards thought better of his statement about bears and
whales, and removed it from later editions of his book, the substance
of his claim nevertheless remains THE central tenet of synthetic
evolution - bears can become whales, or microbes can become elephants,
by means of random mutation and natural selection. Today, few
Darwinists could be found to put their names to such a bald manifesto.
Yet that is what they teach in schools and universities."
Evolution has nothing to do with breeding the absolute best of species,
or going for a specific color or scent. There is no plan to evolution
- no design, but it is a fact. If it isn't so, I'm sure you'll be
happy to point me to the peer-reviewed papers published in refereed
science journals which either refute the Theory of Evolution or propose
an alternate theory which better explains all the evidence, won't you?
"Nobody has yet produced a black tulip or a blue rose because of the
same barrier."
There is no barrier. Animals husbandry does not seek to introduce
brand new genes into organisms, it simply breeds the best of a species
together for some end purpose. Evolution does nto ahve a goal.
Evolution has nothing to do with breeding the absolute best of species,
or going for a specific color or scent. There is no plan to evolution
- no design, but it is a fact. If it isn't so, I'm sure you'll be
happy to point me to the peer-reviewed papers published in refereed
science journals which either refute the Theory of Evolution or propose
an alternate theory which better explains all the evidence, won't you?
PAGE 140:
"So far, no step in the chain of reasoning has been taken which goes
beyond the data. But Darwin's successors felt that the theory as it
stood at that point could be extended logically and naturally one step
further - and it was a step that appeared to be not very far beyond the
data. If variation and NS explained how a finch could change its beak
shape to adapt to its island home, and how a giraffe's neck could get
longer, then it also explained how one species could turn into a
completely different species.
Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild, therefore this
paragraph is entirely flatulent.
[Rest of unsupported juvenile desperation flushed where it belongs]
PAGES 152-3:
"Macroevolution, a process that occurs over millions of years so it
cannot be observed or made the subject of experiment.
Indeed it can. Indeed it has. It's written in the fossil record and
it's written in our genes. In your genes.
Now it is *your* turn to define macroevolution. What is *your*
definition of it? What is *your* definition of "kind"? What is your
scientific explanation for the mechanism which prevents one "kind"
changing into another "kind"?
If you cannot answer these questions you're nothing but a Pastor Dave
clone as I intimated many days ago.
Microevolution, on the other hand, is very much simpler. It is the
change in frequency of variant genes (called alleles) from generation
to generation, and something that can be observed. Darwin's finches are
an example of microevolution. By defining microevolution in such simple
terms, Darwinists are sure of silencing any critics, for no one can
disagree that variant genes do not change in frequency from generation
to generation, just as no one can disagree that a bird with a thick
beak is genetically different from a bird with a thin beak.
It is the next part of the argument (where the goalposts are moved)
that is the really clever part.
No goalposts have been moved. There is no difference between macro and
micro except time. If I'm wrong, I am sure you'll cite the
peer-reviewed science paper published in a refereed journal which
rebuts me, won't you? Won't you?
When you get enough microevolution, say Darwinists, you eventually get
macroevolution. This proposition cannot be tested empirically for
exactly the same reasons that the concept of macroevolution itself
cannot be tested experimentally. Once you have agreed with the first
part of this proposition, however, it appears difficult not to agree
with this final part.
It is demonstrated in the genome. It has been demonstrated over and
over again genetically.
This proposition is contradicted by every objection raised against
neo-Darwinism in the past fifty years: that what ***Mayr called genetic
homeostasis will prevent morphological change beyond a certain
point;*** that there is no evidence for gradual change leading to
macroevolution in the fossil record." [*** emphasis mine]
There is, and I cited many examples above. You are quite simply wrong,
and if you call this *evidence*, you are totally, utterly, irremediably
and irretrievably clueless. You offered nothing but a rambling,
tedious argument from incredulity without a shred of scientific support
or rationale.
Now that I've completely trashed your OP, can we get along to dealing
with the issues from which you've **been running since I raised them**?
I specifically referred you to **six hundred and fifteen examples
supportive of so-called macroevolution**. Which one do you want to
discuss first?
1. "Micro is an undisputed fact, therefore the build-up accounts for
macroevolution."
Inference # 1 and its sound logic is falsified and refuted based on
these scientific facts:
A) Genetic homeostasis
Please demonstrate scientifically how this unsupported claim of yours
has any bearing on the Theory of Evolution.
B) Hundreds of years of experimentation that have established this
uncrossable natural barrier.
Please give examples with references.
C) The geological fossil record showing no signs of species
intermediacy.
Lie. Here are transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives9.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
The only natural time lapse visual event we have (fossil record)
somehow, with millions of species, failed to capture any species
transitioning as one would expect.
Lie. Here are transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives9.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
The data says macroevolution is prevented by natural barriers that no
experimentation has been able to cross. Asserting it happens "behind
your backs in the wild" is a theory contradicted by the available
evidence - driven by worldview needs.
Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Inference # 1 and variations of it only exist because no actual
evidence for macroevolution except by hindsight assumption, while
attempting to place opponents on the defensive; evolutionists have
established this fact for their opponents.
I specifically referred you to **six hundred and fifteen examples
supportive of so-called macroevolution**. Now we can either address
those or you can plug your eyes and ears and continue pretending there
are no such examples. Which is it going to be? Think carefully
because your "reputation" will hang on your response.
Let's address this one from which you have been running:
Recent genetic mapping has demonstrated that mice have 80% of our DNA
(or we theirs) with each species having only some 300 genes that the
other didn't have. Creationists have no intelligent explanation for
this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
What it means is that since the mouse and ourselves split from our
common ancestor, we each have diversified only 300 genes out of some
25,000 - 30,000 each. Maybe these are new genes or maybe we lost some
that the mouse didn't and vice versa. But the one thing that has the
creationists on their backs with their legs in the air like dead bugs
on a sun blazed window ledge is that such diversification is completely
plausible. In other words, a mouse-like organism could as readily
have evolved into a mouse as it could into a human. What's to prevent
it?
Let's make it tough on evolution and say that our common ancestor had a
basic set of genes and in order for it to become a mouse or a human, it
had to "grow" 300 new genes. We know there were critters not
dissimilar to mice running around in the finale to the dinosaur era.
In fact, similar creatures existed at least 75 million years ago. Last
December, part of the DNA of one of them was recently reconstructed on
computer:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4056559.stm
So let's set a starting point 60 million years ago and say this is
where we and mice took off. We each had to grow 300 new genes in 60
million years.
Creationists like to say that a gene has, on average, 100,000 base
pairs, so let's use that number. 100,000 base pairs times 300 genes
means we had to grow 30 million new base pairs in 60 million years.
That's one new base pair every two years! How hard is that? Not hard
at all given the breeding rate of mice and other small mammals that
kick-started this.
Of course, evolution doesn't work in this simple, straight-forward
mathematical mode, but then neither do you need to grow every new gene
from scratch, given the wealth of pseudogenes and junk DNA the genome
has for mutation to play with, so it evens out. This is just a
demonstration of a concept, simplified so that even creationists can
grasp it. It takes the worst case scenario and the creationists lose.
No surprises there.
The evidence in topic establishes a natural barrier called genetic
homeostasis, where, animal taxa change and transition no more - a
"ceiling."
So far all you've done is repeatedly claimed there is this barrier.
You haven't offered a single shred of support or even rational argument
for your claim. So all you have is a claim. Can you point me to a
peer-reviewed science paper published in a refereed science journal
which supports your claim? **No! You can not!** All you have is
loose talk in books. That's pretty pathetic.
Corroborating this fact are hundreds of years of
experimentation stricken in its tracks by the barrier
Again, yet another claim of the quality that a child makes in the
school playgound. That's pathetic. It's truly pathetic.
and the fossil
record itself which shows, species appear, change slightly over time,
then disappear.
Lie. Here are transitionals:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/therapsd.htm
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/talk_origins.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html
http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
http://flmnh.ufl.edu/natsci/vertpaleo/fhc/relatives9.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/snake_vestigial_limb.html
If Darwinian macro-theorists wish to actually evidence their claims,
then they need to establish facts by which they can explain how the
barrier is crossed, then explain why the data trumps the
experimentation and the fossil record itself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
In reality, you are willfully smug BECAUSE you know I will not put up
with this type of disrespect BECAUSE you are afraid to debate me = your
"face saving way out".
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Well now I have **point-by-point refuted your inane unsupported
irrational blather and supported my position with mutliple
readily-accessible references**.
What are you going to do now you are out of straw men?
What you *need* to do is respond **point-by-point** to everything I
have said, then go address the **six hundred fifteen examples
supportive of so-called macroevolution** before you even think of
openign your mouth again. Got that? We can address them one at a time
if you like, starting with the one above.
If you had said "I'll
deal with these later" that would have been something, but after I
posted a list of examples supportive of macroevolution, your response
was: "The issue is macroevolution - not micro Buddha.". What's *that*
if it isn't running away?
Negative. By posting what you did you were evading the OP for the
reasons stated above.
Well now you don't have that excuse any more, do you? So get on with
it.
Address the examples or admit you cannot. It really is that simple.
If we're going to proceed in this exchange by simple grade-school-level
unsupported blind assertion, then let me prove my position by asserting
that you're completely wrong. There. has that settled it? Now shall I
continue in every message after this by flatly stating that I proved
your wrong? That's what *you* appear to be doing.
You have evaded the OP = inability to refute.
There was **nothing* to refute, as I've now tediously spelled out so
that even *you* can grasp it. Now can we get past these pathetic straw
men and actually deal with the evidence instead of your inane
unsupported irrational blather?
Next thing:
We who know the Bible know each other; like Doctors know Doctors and so
on.
That puts you in the same league as Pastor Dave, Jabriol, John
Boatwright, and Earl Webber! LoL!
All Darwinists think they can pick up a Bible with no formal education
and know what it says or means. You fulfill this stereotype quite well.
Well the only way to prove that is to take me on. No one is going to
take your word for it after that pathetic demonstration which you keep
referring to as the "OP". Does "OP" stand for "Only Prattle"?
Or you can run away from this, too, as you appear to be doing right
now.
I have been here at T.O. for several months and have yet to
encounter even ONE atheist/Darwinist that has basic Biblical knowledge.
Given your bias on other fronts, excuse me for laughing my ***** off at
this assessment of your "powers". I can take you down on the Bible any
day you care to meet in alt.atheism. Rest *assured* of that fact.
I do not grant formal Bible debates unless the opponent is known to be
in the same league. Your attitude betrays ad hoc Scriptural prowess =
dime a dozen. Where can I read some of your Biblical knowwledge
material ?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. You will be labelled a coward if you run from both
the message above *and* from the religious debate. You have no more
excuses, you are out of straw men. It's down to the wire. It's time
to put up or shut up, because all you have offered so far is
flatulence. You have blind-***** assertion and nothing to back it up.
That's pretty pathetic, but it *is* what I knew you would do. You
*are* another Pastor Dave if this is all you have.
This is a lie, plain and simple, as the messages in this thread
demonstrate, and if all you had to offer him is the same as you have
offered me, then you are truly pathetic and seriously deluded.
Insult = inability to refute.
Insult *after* refutaiton = your embarrassment. Now deal with the
*evidence* and quit your pathetic bluster, will you?
Anyone can read this topic and confirm. Harshman is the premier
intellectual here at T.O. - yet his actual ability does not correspond
with the reputation. Concerning these types of credentialed persons =
proof anyone can pass classes. I know this is an insult but I only make
it in response to his groundless insults made in order to evade
debate = the Darwinian way. One expects doctorates to produce arguments
that Joe Lunchbucket cannot. Harshman is refuted by logic alone
because his arguments lack any real evidence and rely on gross
illogic.
You know, I'm not interested in hearing you try to pump yourself up in
this transparently juvenuile fashion, nor am I interested in listening
to any more of your childish whining about Harshman or anyone else, as
I've already made crystally clear to you.
You're not dealing with Harshman or anyone else right here, you're
dealing with me, and right now you're not even doing that much.
Instead, you are whining and griping and running away from me as fast
as your cowardly feet can take you. You can either turn it around with
your response to this message or have me making a complete mockery of
you every time I encounter you from here on out as I do with the likes
of Pastor Dave. The choice is entirely yours. Use it wisely.
[Rest of juvenile trashed flushed where it belongs]
You can either respond to the above or post your ~20K opening argument
for the existence of god in alt.atheism as I've outlined, or do both.
I don't care. You're already halfway down the tube as it is. Let's
see if you can recover, shall we, or will we see yet more reams of
empty blather?
Budikka
.
