| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"jabriol" |
| Date: |
14 Nov 2003 07:32:58 PM |
| Object: |
TOBS:evolution misdirection |
gravity can be observed. and even falsified. Evolution as the origin of
man
can not.
Evolution (being the change in allele frequencies in populations over time)
is observed, just as watching a planet travel in its orbit is observed.
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
14 Nov 2003 10:45:14 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:dnftb.960284$Id.142131@news.easynews.com...
gravity can be observed. and even falsified. Evolution as the origin of
man
can not.
Evolution (being the change in allele frequencies in populations over
time)
is observed, just as watching a planet travel in its orbit is observed.
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
It could, actually, you know. Human fossils in undisturbed sediments older
than the earliest known primates would be very disconcerting. If the human
LGGLO pseudogene were disabled in the manner of guinea pigs rather than that
of other anthropoids, that would be a very severe problem for common
descent. Humans share a host of pseudogenes and endogenenous retroviruses
(with point differences in nucleotide sequences arranged in the same nested
hierarchy as morphological features) with other primates, especially with
African apes, and especially with chimpanzees and bonobos. If we shared
pseudogenes with dogs that we didn't share with apes, or ERVs with dolphins
that neither species shared with other cetaceans or other primates, that
would be inconsistent with (would effectively falsify) common descent
("evolution as origin of man").
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
15 Nov 2003 05:05:56 PM |
|
|
"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message
news:vrbbr4a2n0vu5a@corp.supernews.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:dnftb.960284$Id.142131@news.easynews.com...
gravity can be observed. and even falsified. Evolution as the origin
of
man
can not.
Evolution (being the change in allele frequencies in populations over
time)
is observed, just as watching a planet travel in its orbit is observed.
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of
man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
It could, actually, you know. Human fossils in undisturbed sediments
older
than the earliest known primates would be very disconcerting. If the
human
LGGLO pseudogene were disabled in the manner of guinea pigs rather than
that
of other anthropoids, that would be a very severe problem for common
descent. Humans share a host of pseudogenes and endogenenous retroviruses
(with point differences in nucleotide sequences arranged in the same
nested
hierarchy as morphological features) with other primates, especially with
African apes, and especially with chimpanzees and bonobos. If we shared
pseudogenes with dogs that we didn't share with apes, or ERVs with
dolphins
that neither species shared with other cetaceans or other primates, that
would be inconsistent with (would effectively falsify) common descent
("evolution as origin of man").
-- Steven J.
once again speculation..
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Karolina" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection & creation claimed a fact - by Jabbermonkey |
14 Nov 2003 08:16:16 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:dnftb.960284$Id.142131@news.easynews.com...
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
==============
[Karoline replies: Fundy misinformation noted. Again, Creation as the origin
of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab and only claimed as a
fact.]
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 07:18:01 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<dnftb.960284$Id.142131@news.easynews.com>...
gravity can be observed. and even falsified. Evolution as the origin of
man
can not.
Evolution (being the change in allele frequencies in populations over time)
is observed, just as watching a planet travel in its orbit is observed.
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
Neither can a magical giant in the sky creating everything from
nothing, so **ONCE AGAIN, *****, IT COMES DOWN TO THE EVIDENCE** as
you have endlessly been informed. Just how many tedious, endless
times are you going to have to be told precisely the same things
before you get them to lodge securely in your full of dogshit skull?
No one is greater at avoiding the issues than you. I have a dozen
unanswered questions (including one asking you to list these multiple
definitions of evolution you keep prattling about) and over two dozen
threads that you have quietly abandoned rather than have to face the
fact that you are the most clueless moron on the planet. And here you
are deriding others? What a trashed-out hypocritical piece of slimy
stinking, festering horseshit you are.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
14 Nov 2003 11:10:27 PM |
|
|
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
Liar.
While many things in the evolutionary process, especially the original
abiogenesis, of course cannot be observed because they happened in our
distant past, abiogenesis has been successfully simulated in the lab
for several times. Also, evolutionary processes - especially speciation
- have been observed "in the wild". These observations can be repeated.
Also, evolution can be falsified. Of course one needs more for this
than your usual pseudo-proofs. Try that pesky thing you are forbidden
to even think about, called "FACT".
Speaking of this, maybe YOU are the first creationist to be able to
present evidence in support of creation to me? Every one of your
friends failed so far, either not replying at all to this request, or
throwing insults left and right.
Come on, show some courage and be honest! Or are you a coward like all
the other creationists?
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
15 Nov 2003 05:10:35 PM |
|
|
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bp4fv9$1jthjb$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of
man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
Liar.
While many things in the evolutionary process, especially the original
abiogenesis, of course cannot be observed because they happened in our
distant past, abiogenesis has been successfully simulated in the lab
for several times.
Really????????????????????????????????????
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers, documents..
Also, evolutionary processes - especially speciation
- have been observed "in the wild". These observations can be repeated.
speciation throwm as evidence once again.. and once again, which of the 5
diferent contradictory defintion you are reffering to...
Also, evolution can be falsified. Of course one needs more for this
than your usual pseudo-proofs. Try that pesky thing you are forbidden
to even think about, called "FACT".
evidence please.....
Speaking of this, maybe YOU are the first creationist to be able to
present evidence in support of creation to me? Every one of your
friends failed so far, either not replying at all to this request, or
throwing insults left and right.
you are asking the wrong person. I am not a creationist.. I guess you never
read any of my previous posts eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 03:52:04 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<Lnytb.81119$be.11383@news.easynews.com>...
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bp4fv9$1jthjb$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin of
man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
Neither can the creation, so it comes down to the evidence, and
**all** of the evidence so far unearthed points directly to evolution.
Period. Aspects of evolution have been demonstrated and observed in
the lab and in the wild. You have been repeatedly, endlessly,
tirelessly told this. Do you have some sort of learning disability
that you are unable to grasp simple facts such as these?
Once again if you have references to peer-reviewed papers published in
professional science journals that either refute the Theory of
Evolution, or that offer an alternative theory that better explains
the evidence, please quote those references to us. If you do not,
then please shut your mindlessly blabbering mouth, because you haven't
had anything new or worthwhile to say since last century.
Liar.
While many things in the evolutionary process, especially the original
abiogenesis, of course cannot be observed because they happened in our
distant past, abiogenesis has been successfully simulated in the lab
for several times.
Really????????????????????????????????????
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers, documents.
First of all, as you have been repeatedly told, abiogenesis has
nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. Evolution is a fact
regardless as to whether it all began by a magic spell from some big
bearded giant in the sky, or whether the entire universe came about
through natural causes.
Secondly, since 1953, many aspects of abiogenesis have been
demonstrated in the lab as you have been repeatedly told. Plausible
pathways from what is known and has been demonstrated, through to the
actual development of life have been posited, as Nobel laureate
Christian de Duve explains in his book "Vital Dust". Again, you have
been told this repeatedly.
Here is one reference (I will give you more whenever you get around to
giving even a *single* meaningful reference to your repeated lies
about humans and bananas sharing 75% or their DNA. No, it was 60%
wasn't it? No, no, no, it was 50%...):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
Also, evolutionary processes - especially speciation
- have been observed "in the wild". These observations can be repeated.
speciation throwm as evidence once again.. and once again, which of the 5
diferent contradictory defintion you are reffering to...
You have been repeatedly pointed to the talk.origins observed
speciation FAQ. This is a summary of knowledge that was written by a
scientist, informally peer reviewed by t.o. regulars, and which
contains over 70 references, many of which are to peer-reviewed papers
published in professional science journals. Again, you have been
repeatedly informed of this.
Also, evolution can be falsified. Of course one needs more for this
than your usual pseudo-proofs. Try that pesky thing you are forbidden
to even think about, called "FACT".
evidence please.....
Once again you have had this question answered repeatedly. Finding a
fossil elephant in Precambrian rocks would instantly falsify the
Theory of Evolution. Period.
you are asking the wrong person. I am not a creationist.. I guess you never
read any of my previous posts eh?
Apparently neither do you, and neither do you read what I have
repeatedly said, since I have pointed out specifically a post which
*you* originated which proves you are a creationist
(http://tinyurl.com/v8zc).
This thread which *you* began on september 21st this year was rather
ingrammatically titled: "TOBS: The Fossil record support's Genesis"
and in which you specifically state:
"On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then
the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into
another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different
type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its kind."
(Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being
by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or
organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly
complex, as living things are today."
You also started a thread ("TOBS-Genesis: Creative day II") on
September 2nd this year (http://tinyurl.com/v8zn) in which you
directly quote the Bible creation story. If you believe God created
the universe, then you are a creationist, period.
Now this denial of yours proves you are a liar.
Now I have answered *all* of your questions, how about getting around
to answering this list that I have been asking you since August and
which you have so far completely failed to answer in even one item.
I'm still waiting for you to:
1. Admit that regardless of what it is classed as and regardless of
whether it was or was not in the line to birds, the archaeopteryx had
pretty much a fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features and
therefore represented an example of a potential intermediate stage.
2. Admit that the okapi is pretty much what a transitional giraffe
would have looked like.
3. Explain what would prevent something akin to a mouse, from changing
300 genes over 60 million years to become either human or a modern
mouse.
4. Acknowledge that no evolutionist has ever claimed that modern birds
evolved from modern reptiles and that argument from incredulity
addressing this non-issue, no matter how ancient it is, does not
constitute a "colossal hole" in the Theory of Evolution.
5. Acknowledge that creationist letters published as a courtesy (or
maybe as a source of amusement) in _New Scientist_ are *not* the
equivalent of peer-reviewed science papers, no matter how ancient and
misguided they are.
6. Post a **LIST** of these "colossal holes" in the Theory of
Evolution that you've has been lying about since August.
7. Admit that the informally peer-reviewed talk.origins archive is a
valid reference, especially when the articles to which I have
repeatedly refered you are themselves replete with references, many of
which are to peer-reviewed
material.
8. Realize what a pathetic hypocrite you are to demand peer-reviewed
material of others when you have never offered a single peer-reviewed
reference yourself - in fact, all you essentially do offer is
unreferenced, plagiarized, and all-too-frequently outdated argument
from incredulity.
9. Admit that the article you offered as a reference for your claim
that 75% of human DNA is the same as that of the banana actually
stated that *up to* 30% *may be* similar.
10. Offer even one useful reference for your subsequent and previous
claims that we are:
A. 90% identical to a banana in our DNA,
B. 60% identical to a banana in our DNA,
C. 50% identical to a banana in our DNA.
It's very important that you deal with these issues, because right now
it's looking very much like you are 100% identical to a coward and a
hypocrite. Any response to this which does not intelligently and
competently address each of these issues will be an open admission by
you that you are a liar, a hypocrite and a coward.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 07:26:16 PM |
|
|
"Budikka" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e1e30450.0311161352.95a8416@posting.google.com...
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message
news:<Lnytb.81119$be.11383@news.easynews.com>...
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bp4fv9$1jthjb$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
[Jabriol Replies: Misdirection noted. Again Evolution as the origin
of
man
has not been observed. Can not be duplicated in a lab nor falsified]
Neither can the creation, so it comes down to the evidence, and
**all** of the evidence so far unearthed points directly to evolution.
no beef with creation, nobody so it either.. at least no human.
as for evidence.. any evidence you can point to as evolution, I can use the
same to point toward design with intent.
therefore it is not the evidence itself. But the manipulation of the
evidence.
Period. Aspects of evolution have been demonstrated and observed in
the lab and in the wild.
no.. you are misleading once again. cellular evolution has been observed.
Speciation, depending on what scientific discpline using the term has been
viewed.
what has not been observed is one lifeform evolving from one genus to
another.
there seem to be a limit to change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
17 Nov 2003 06:09:52 PM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote in message news:<YsVtb.149570$be.21415@news.easynews.com>...
as for evidence.. any evidence you can point to as evolution, I can use the
same to point toward design with intent.
Okay, try these:
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2536501.stm
reveals that "...about 80% of genes in mice and men are like for like.
But if one considers just the different classes of genes - mice have
more genes involved in reproduction and smell, for example - then the
similarity rises to 99%."
So by this argument, we differ only 1% from mice. What was the
purpose in that design choice?
2. It turns out that we have only 300 genes that mice do not and they
have only 300 that we do not. Why is that, if we were *designed* for
such different purposes?
According to creationists, the average gene has 100,000 base pairs.
Times 300 means that we have accumulated a *maximum* of 30 million
base pair differences since we split from our common ancestor with
mice - they accumulated their 300 gene changes and we accumulated
ours. These genes were very likely the same 300 that simply mutated
into fulfilling other functions over time.
Now this is assuming the absolute worst case, that every single base
pair in every one of those 300 genes had to change in order for the
mouse ancestor to become human. Clearly this is an extreme, but I
will stay with it in order to give the creationist every advantage.
They desperately need it.
There were creatures not dissimilar to mice running around at least 60
million years ago. If we rough this out, we have to conclude that we
have added or mutated a base pair difference from our common mouse
ancestor once every two years since then. What was the design purpose
in that? So that mice ancestors could also evolve into humans?
3. Why was it that the designer not only designed DNA functionality in
us that is so amazingly similar to that in chimpanzees, he also
designed errors that are the same in us and chimps?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/
4. Why did the designer create an organism which had pretty much a
fifty-fifty mix of reptile/dino and bird features which could then be
seen later as representive of an example of a potential intermediate
life form. Was he trying to sow confusion?
5. What was the designer's purpose inc reating the okapi, an animal
that is pretty much what a transitional giraffe would look like?
Again, was he trying to sow confusion?
6. Why do we find so many other examples of transitional forms int eh
fossilr ecord (as described at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html - a summary of
discoveries pertaining to transitional fossils, containing over 70
references, many of which are to papers published in peer-reviewed
science journals.
no.. you are misleading once again. cellular evolution has been observed.
Speciation, depending on what scientific discpline using the term has been
viewed.
Finally he admits it. That only took three months.
what has not been observed is one lifeform evolving from one genus to
another. There seem to be a limit to change.
Not according to Lenny Flank's article at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/kinds.htm
I rather suspect you will back away from your claim of no evolution
between genera, which I believe has been seen, and elevate it
somewhere nearer to family, but why would you expect to find such
changes in the relatively recent fossil record? The major body plans,
as creationists are so very fond of blathering, were in place back in
the Cambrian. There is no reason to expect to find cross-family
changes later than that. That's not the way evolution works.
We differ from chimpanzees in our genetic makeup by no more than 5% or
so. The final tally isn't in until the entire genome of both species
has been mapped. What is the mechanism which would prevent something
akin to a chimpanzee from evolving into something akin to a human -
and changing that five percent of the genome?
But of course, before you could make a statement such as the one you
made above, you would have to define what these "kinds" are that are
so immutable. Please define what a "kind" is then we can continue
this discussion.
But before we can, of course, you would have to define the precise
mechanism which sets this limit you have now made a claim for. What
is the limit? What mechanism enforces it, and how does it work?
Since you have finally agreed that the only way to the truth of our
origins is not through the Bible, but through examining the evidence,
please point to any peer-reviewed paper which has been published in a
standard, refereed science journal which casts serious doubt on the
Theory of Evolution.
If you cannot do that, then please point me to any peer-reviewed paper
which has been published in a standard, refereed science journal which
establihsed a solid alternative to the Theory of Evolution, which
explains all the known facts as well as or better than evolution does.
I am thrilled you have finally quit running away and come to the
discussion table. Let's see how it goes from here. You may yet
escape that freight train.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 12:03:25 AM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2003 16:09:52 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
5. What was the designer's purpose inc reating the okapi, an animal
that is pretty much what a transitional giraffe would look like?
Again, was he trying to sow confusion?
I've never come across the okapi before - what a delightful creature! Do we know
anything about just how closely related it is to the giraffe?
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 12:32:08 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17 Nov 2003 16:09:52 -0800, (Budikka) wrote:
5. What was the designer's purpose inc reating the okapi, an animal
that is pretty much what a transitional giraffe would look like?
Again, was he trying to sow confusion?
I've never come across the okapi before - what a delightful creature! Do
we know anything about just how closely related it is to the giraffe?
Same family different genus under ordinary taxonomy:
Family Giraffidae
Genus Giraffa
Author........ : Brünnich, 1771.
Citation...... : Zool. Fundamenta, p. 36.
Type Species.. :Cervus camelopardalis Linnaeus, 1758.
Giraffa camelopardalis
Author........ : (Linnaeus, 1758).
Citation...... : Syst. Nat., 10th ed., 1:66.
Common Name... : Giraffe
Original Name. :Cervus camelopardalis .
Distribution.. :Formerly, Gambia and Senegal to Ethiopia and Somalia,
south to Central African Republic, NE Zaire, Uganda and Tanzania; E and
SW Zambia; S Angola, Zimbabwe and S Mozambique to South Africa, mostly
north of the Orange River. Distribution now much restricted; in W Africa
still present at least until recently in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, NE
Nigeria and N Cameroon; in southern Africa, now ranging no further south
than N Namibia, Botswana and E Transvaal (South Africa).
Type Locality. :"AEligthiopia et Sennar", restricted to Sudan, Sennar,
by Harper (1940 ref :322).
Comments...... : Reviewed by Dagg (1971 ref , Mammalian Species, 5).
Genus Okapia
Author........ : Lankester, 1901.
Citation...... : Nature, 64:24.
Type Species.. :Equus johnstoni P. L. Sclater, 1901.
Okapia johnstoni
Author........ : (P. L. Sclater, 1901).
Citation...... : Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond., 1901(1):50.
Common Name... : Okapi
Original Name. :Equus johnstoni .
Distribution.. :N and E Zaire; perhaps adjacent areas.
Type Locality. :Zaire, Semliki Forest, Mundala.
Both species are the only members of their genus. In effect, they are
sister species.
Data from Mammal Species of the World at the Smithsonian:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/
I can't find any cladograms showing the relations in modern terms, but
here is a page
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/ugteach/cws/evol1/giraffe%20lions.htm
and here is a publication on the genetics of the two species (yes,
that's the whole title):
Vermeesch, J. R., W. De Meurichy, H. Van Den Berghe, P. Marynen, and P.
Petit. 1996. Differences in the distribution and nature of the
interstitial telomeric (TTAGGG)n sequences in the chromosomes of the
Giraffidae, okapai (Okapia johnstoni), and giraffe (Giraffa
camelopardalis): evidence for ancestral telomeres at the okapi
polymorphic rob(5;26) fusion site. Cytogenet Cell Genet 72 (4):310-5.
--
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly,
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 01:10:50 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 06:32:08 GMT, (John Wilkins) wrote:
Data from Mammal Species of the World at the Smithsonian:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/
I can't find any cladograms showing the relations in modern terms, but
here is a page
http://www.biols.susx.ac.uk/ugteach/cws/evol1/giraffe%20lions.htm
and here is a publication on the genetics of the two species (yes,
that's the whole title):
Vermeesch, J. R., W. De Meurichy, H. Van Den Berghe, P. Marynen, and P.
Petit. 1996. Differences in the distribution and nature of the
interstitial telomeric (TTAGGG)n sequences in the chromosomes of the
Giraffidae, okapai (Okapia johnstoni), and giraffe (Giraffa
camelopardalis): evidence for ancestral telomeres at the okapi
polymorphic rob(5;26) fusion site. Cytogenet Cell Genet 72 (4):310-5.
Thanks!
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
17 Nov 2003 02:13:40 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:26:16 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
as for evidence.. any evidence you can point to as evolution, I can use the
same to point toward design with intent.
No you can't. Homology between similar limbs used for different purposes (bat's
wing, dolphin's flipper for example) makes no sense from the ID point of view.
Why wouldn't the IDer use a model closer to a shark's fin for a dolphin for
example. Of course it makes perfect sense in terms of common descent. Not only
does it make sense, but it actually *tells* us something about the relationship
between these species. What does ID tell us about this: the IDer did it - not
exactly helpful.
therefore it is not the evidence itself. But the manipulation of the
evidence.
Period. Aspects of evolution have been demonstrated and observed in
the lab and in the wild.
no.. you are misleading once again. cellular evolution has been observed.
Speciation, depending on what scientific discpline using the term has been
viewed.
what has not been observed is one lifeform evolving from one genus to
another.
there seem to be a limit to change.
The fossil record shows otherwise. Besides, what is this limit? I know of
*nothing* in information theory that prevents the creation of new information.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
17 Nov 2003 08:33:21 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9f0hrvo78tjegenkub02ckhm3gds7irkpu@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:26:16 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
as for evidence.. any evidence you can point to as evolution, I can use the
same to point toward design with intent.
No you can't.
yes I can. want to give it a try?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
17 Nov 2003 11:32:57 AM |
|
|
On 17 Nov 2003 06:33:21 -0800, (JaBrIoL) wrote:
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<9f0hrvo78tjegenkub02ckhm3gds7irkpu@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:26:16 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
as for evidence.. any evidence you can point to as evolution, I can use the
same to point toward design with intent.
No you can't.
yes I can. want to give it a try?
I just did. Homology. Explain why the IDer used completely different skeletal
arrangements for sharks and dolphins, but very similar ones for dolphins and
humans.
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 01:04:35 AM |
|
|
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers, documents..
The burden of proof lies with you boy. You and your friends are the
ones blatantly claiming that the theory of evolution is false. Anyway,
you wouldn't believe ME. Go to your neighborhood library and check it
out for yourself, or check out the according article in the
talk.origins archive that contains several references for you to follow.
Of course you won't do this, just think up another excuse for not
needing to verify this... or else you'd have to admit that you lie, and
we can't have this, can we?
Also, evolutionary processes - especially speciation
- have been observed "in the wild". These observations can be repeated.
speciation throwm as evidence once again.. and once again, which of the 5
diferent contradictory defintion you are reffering to...
You show, by these words, your utter ignorance regarding speciation
models. Educate yourself on the subject before you dare criticize.
Also, evolution can be falsified. Of course one needs more for this
than your usual pseudo-proofs. Try that pesky thing you are forbidden
to even think about, called "FACT".
evidence please.....
So you ask ME to search for evidence supporting YOUR claim. We see that
you are a liar, but obviously you are also pathologically lazy.
you are asking the wrong person. I am not a creationist.. I guess you never
read any of my previous posts eh?
Oh, of course not, how could YOU be a creationist? BTW I read enough of
your preivous posts to notice your permanent attempts to either support
your claims by lying or trying to redirect to another topic as soon as
we come with HIC RHODOS. HIC SALTA.
Give us one single reason to take you seriously...
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 07:06:13 AM |
|
|
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bp7brt$1l5m1m$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers,
documents..
The burden of proof lies with you boy.
uh.. no it doesn't it was said that abiogenesis was done in a lab...
where the evidence?
I bet there is none..
snip with the rest>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 09:55:15 AM |
|
|
The burden of proof lies with you boy.
uh.. no it doesn't it was said that abiogenesis was done in a lab...
where the evidence?
I told you where to look it up. Be honest, would you believe ME if I
told it, eh? (Not that I assume you would believe this from anyone
unless your Führer said it's ok to do...)
I bet there is none..
You can bet whatever you want. Your choice of words implies, by the
way, that in fact you don't know if there's evidence or not. Come on,
show some courage for a change, educate yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Just click and check it out.
Your old fundie "There's no evidence! There's no evidence!
Na-na-na-na-naaa-na! There's no evidence!" gets boring.
If against all odds you should really do it, come back and we will
talk. If not, get lost and never again propose creationism would be
science and the theory of evolution would not.
Dismissed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 07:19:23 PM |
|
|
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message
news:bp8h7f$1lbqig$1@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de...
The burden of proof lies with you boy.
uh.. no it doesn't it was said that abiogenesis was done in a lab...
where the evidence?
I told you where to look it up. Be honest, would you believe ME if I
told it, eh? (Not that I assume you would believe this from anyone
unless your Führer said it's ok to do...)
I bet there is none..
You can bet whatever you want. Your choice of words implies, by the
way, that in fact you don't know if there's evidence or not. Come on,
show some courage for a change, educate yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Just click and check it out.
Ahh yes the amazing talk.origins faqs, non-peered review document on guess
and speculations. If you read the faqs yourself, you will notice there is
not one instance where it claims abiogenesis was reproduced in a lab.
misdirection with intent to mislead.. noted.
Your old fundie "There's no evidence! There's no evidence!
Na-na-na-na-naaa-na! There's no evidence!" gets boring.
you are confusing me with a creationist. evolution in the cell occurs.
evolution as the origin of man has not been proven.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Helpis Freedem" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
17 Nov 2003 12:58:25 AM |
|
|
"jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org>a a fanatical Jehovah's Witness and known
sociopathic troll wrote in message
news:vmVtb.1169258$Of.173540@news.easynews.com...
You can bet whatever you want. Your choice of words implies, by the
way, that in fact you don't know if there's evidence or not. Come on,
show some courage for a change, educate yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Just click and check it out.
Ahh yes the amazing talk.origins faqs, non-peered review document on
guess
and speculations.
* Ah yes, the amazing Genesis account, a non-peer reviewed ancient document
based on even older myths, fantasies and superstitions. Wow,... you have us
all convinced - we're all going to head for the nearest Kingdom Hell to see
about a babble, ..er,.. bible study.
--
MiKrobez......
(Jabriol) should be more careful in the way he presents
himself. Some people here might start pulling out all those
JW quotes about "knowing the tree by its fruit" (Credit to Campbell)
====================================================><>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 11:46:57 PM |
|
|
Ahh yes the amazing talk.origins faqs, non-peered review document on guess
and speculations. If you read the faqs yourself, you will notice there is
not one instance where it claims abiogenesis was reproduced in a lab.
First you (what a surprise!) conveniently ignore the many references,
in the toa, to peer-reviewed papers. Second, you lie about the missing
abiogenesis claim. Give us any reason to take you seriously. Well...?
misdirection with intent to mislead.. noted.
^
This remark being the usual lie... noted.
you are confusing me with a creationist. evolution in the cell occurs.
evolution as the origin of man has not been proven.
Neither has creation/intelligent design. All (non-faked) evidence
supports evolution, no matter what lies you repeat (or, for a change,
think up) and post here.
Okay, you've had your chance. From now on I will officially consider
you a valid target for mockery and ridicule. There's no reason to
respect either your opinions or yourself. You want to be treated this
way, no problem.
As my scripture advises:
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove
And gifts with gifts requite,
But man shall mocking with mockery answer
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(Havamal)
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 06:24:01 AM |
|
|
"Thore Schmechtig" <WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote in message news:<bp9nsn$1lkf6e$3@ID-87341.news.uni-berlin.de>...
Ahh yes the amazing talk.origins faqs, non-peered review document on guess
and speculations. If you read the faqs yourself, you will notice there is
not one instance where it claims abiogenesis was reproduced in a lab.
First you (what a surprise!) conveniently ignore the many references,
in the toa, to peer-reviewed papers. Second, you lie about the missing
abiogenesis claim. Give us any reason to take you seriously. Well...?
A lie can not be based on a lie.. correct...
and you have yet to direct us to anyu scientific journal where they
claim abiogenesis has been acomplish in a lab.
Neither has creation/intelligent design. All (non-faked) evidence
supports evolution, no matter what lies you repeat (or, for a change,
think up) and post here.
Evidence is evidence, and can be manipulated... ask OJ Simpon. Aquited
in court, found guilty in another.. same evidence.
Okay, you've had your chance. From now on I will officially consider
you a valid target for mockery and ridicule. There's no reason to
respect either your opinions or yourself. You want to be treated this
way, no problem.
do as you wish... it is the typical attitude of people who looses an
argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 03:06:52 PM |
|
|
A lie can not be based on a lie.. correct...
Right. That's why you lose.
and you have yet to direct us to anyu scientific journal where they
claim abiogenesis has been acomplish in a lab.
What part of the statement "Read the talk.origin archive and follow the
links there" is too hard for your feeble mind to understand, hmm?
Evidence is evidence, and can be manipulated... ask OJ Simpon. Aquited
in court, found guilty in another.. same evidence.
Of course. But the more evidence from different sources is compatible,
the less likely the chance of manipulation.
This is logical thinking of course, grossly incompatible with your "I
_HAVE_ to be right" childish stubbornness.
do as you wish... it is the typical attitude of people who looses an
argument.
Wrong. There is no argument as you ignore everything except "Yes you
are right".
I suggest you leave this newsgroup with its adult participants and go
arguing with some five-year-olds in the local sandbox. That's more
appropriate of your mental development.
UNWRITTEN RULES OF FUNDAMENTALISM
1. "I'm right and you are wrong".
2. Never admit that you are wrong, even if you really are.
3. When you have nothing to say, hurl insults.
4. Regard and portray your own violence, whether physical,
psychological,
or verbal, at all times as defensive
5. Be prepared at all times to lie and bluster, particularly when backed
into a corner in an argument
6. Never accept responsibility for any mess you have personally caused.
7. When you are forced to admit to an error, regard the whole process of
error and correction as part of God's personal plan for you and not as a
something for which you should apologise retract or make amends except
verbally and secretly to God himself
8. Always see yourself and you personal actions as part of God's plans
for
the world. Recognise that even your errors are just part of Gods will
for
the betterment of mankind.
9.Profess humility but avoid the actual experience of it.
10.Refuse to take in information that differs from your own view and
oppose all such information through classification of such information
in
a derogatory and simplistic manner(eg by categorising it as left wing
propaganda)
11.Refuse to accept that truth is not black and white; that reality is
complex and there are shades of grey
12.Refuse to forgive anyone else for anything unless you purport to
forgive on behalf of other people unconnected with you for whom you
don't
have that right anyhow.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 01:22:38 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 06:46:57 +0100, "Thore Schmechtig"
<WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
Ahh yes the amazing talk.origins faqs, non-peered review document on guess
and speculations. If you read the faqs yourself, you will notice there is
not one instance where it claims abiogenesis was reproduced in a lab.
First you (what a surprise!) conveniently ignore the many references,
in the toa, to peer-reviewed papers. Second, you lie about the missing
abiogenesis claim. Give us any reason to take you seriously. Well...?
misdirection with intent to mislead.. noted.
^
This remark being the usual lie... noted.
you are confusing me with a creationist. evolution in the cell occurs.
evolution as the origin of man has not been proven.
Neither has creation/intelligent design. All (non-faked) evidence
supports evolution, no matter what lies you repeat (or, for a change,
think up) and post here.
Okay, you've had your chance. From now on I will officially consider
you a valid target for mockery and ridicule. There's no reason to
respect either your opinions or yourself. You want to be treated this
way, no problem.
As my scripture advises:
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove
And gifts with gifts requite,
But man shall mocking with mockery answer
And fraud with falsehood meet."
(Havamal)
TOP TEN SIGNS YOU'RE A (CHRISTIAN) FUNDAMENTALIST
10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of
gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when
someone denies the existence of yours.
9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists
say that people evolved from other life forms, but you
have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were
created from dirt.
8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem
believing in a Triune God.
7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the
"atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even
flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all
the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the
elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" --
including women, children, and trees!
6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and
Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have
no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated
Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed,
came back to life and then ascended into the sky.
5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little
loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth
(4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with
believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting
in their tents and guessing that Earth is a couple of
generations old.
4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet
with the exception of those who share your beliefs --
though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend
Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet
consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."
3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and
physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot
rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be
all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.
2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it
comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be
evidence that prayer works. And you think that the
remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.
1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and
agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church
history - but still call yourself a Christian.
Excellent stuff. I'd like to nominate the whole 10 reasons as AQOTM, but I don't
think they'd accept something that big!
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 01:24:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:19:23 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
you are confusing me with a creationist.
Ah yes! You're an intelligent design fan aren't you? That's TOTALLY different!
---------
Archdeacom Levy Oates
On behalf of the Prophet Eric Peabody (pbuh)
Basingstoke, England
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "JaBrIoL" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
18 Nov 2003 05:57:47 AM |
|
|
Levy Oates <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<k6ijrvot17lot7p5ul8vur8q2trj7onr0d@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 01:19:23 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org> wrote:
you are confusing me with a creationist.
Ah yes! You're an intelligent design fan aren't you? That's TOTALLY different!
More like as Kronk says, and Interventionist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 02:00:10 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 16:55:15 +0100, "Thore Schmechtig"
<WRITETOcommoner@carcosa.de> wrote:
You can bet whatever you want. Your choice of words implies, by the
way, that in fact you don't know if there's evidence or not. Come on,
show some courage for a change, educate yourself.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/ Just click and check it out.
Your old fundie "There's no evidence! There's no evidence!
Na-na-na-na-naaa-na! There's no evidence!" gets boring.
If against all odds you should really do it, come back and we will
talk. If not, get lost and never again propose creationism would be
science and the theory of evolution would not.
Jabbers will look for any excuse he can to reject references that
don't fit WT doctrine. Several months ago I posted a link that had a
very good essay on evolution. His only response was to say that it
wasn't valid because it wasn't peer reviewed. Yet, he'll believe
anything his precious WT says without question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 11:36:32 PM |
|
|
Hi,
Jabbers will look for any excuse he can to reject references that
don't fit WT doctrine.
Well, don't know if he's a JW quoting drone or controlled by some other
cult, but basically you are right. ;)
Gee, I wish they wouldn't be serious... I'd looove to think of all this
bullcr*p as a big joke and laugh my ar*e off!
--
Bye
Tocis (commoner AT carcosa DOT de)
Include HI-AK 523 in the subject or your email will be deleted!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
15 Nov 2003 09:23:34 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:10:35 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers, documents..
Let's point you to the place you get all your assertions:
Bend over. Stick your head between your cheeks. Now push hard.
--
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your
Christ."
- Mohandas Gandhi
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "jabriol" |
|
| Title: Re: Abiogenesis in a lab?Re: TOBS:evolution misdirection |
16 Nov 2003 07:04:40 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hcrdrv80pjddal97mnltkbl1ejbi629i4o@Pern.rk...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 23:10:35 GMT, "jabriol" <jabriol@bluegender.org>
posted in alt.atheism:
please point me to the results via website, journalistic papers,
documents..
Let's point you to the place you get all your assertions:
Bend over. Stick your head between your cheeks. Now push hard.
I thought so.. no evidence at all..
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
