| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Dr Tam" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 10:02:18 PM |
| Object: |
Creation |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4408187.stm
A European team claims to have obtained the first direct image of a planet
beyond our own Solar System.
The "extrasolar planet" is said to orbit a star called GQ Lup - thought to
be like a young version of our Sun.
Similar claims have been made in the past, but sceptical scientists believe
the pictures merely show objects that share the same view in the sky.
The GQ Lup object is far more certain claims Ralph Neuhaeuser's team in the
journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
GQ Lup and its companion are located in a star-forming region about 400
light-years away.
Dr Tam
.
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 06:28:31 PM |
|
|
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 10:08:02 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:28:31 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, georgann
<chenault@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 11:44:29 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Dave" <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:vvon51945nkjrj9hfdqksf4dalc31lqf9e@4ax.com...
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:28:31 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, georgann
<chenault@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
Who mentioned the Bible? We were talking about evolution. Why do you keep
dragging religion into it?
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Evolution Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 09:23:27 AM |
|
|
westprog <westprog@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Pastor Dave wrote in message
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
Who mentioned the Bible? We were talking about evolution. Why do you keep
dragging religion into it?
Because Dave, and georgann too, iirc, actually believe snakes don't
have legs because their god got mad at a walking/talking serpent who
beguiled an ancient woman one day, and their perfect and loving god
put a curse on both the woman and the snakes. One would have to crawl
around on its belly for eternity, limbless as such, and the other
would have unnatural and incredible pain during childbirth. Dave and
Georgann both seem to believe that story literally, just like they
believe in the Noah's flood story, and probably the whale or big fish
swallowing Jonah story as well.
If they toss one of 'em out, they think they'll have to toss 'em all
out, which is actually not all that bad of reasoning, imo. Once you
realize a myth for a myth and break that barrier, tossing out all the
other myths in the bible becomes a lot easier.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 05:08:28 PM |
|
|
In article <vvon51945nkjrj9hfdqksf4dalc31lqf9e@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:28:31 GMT, while Pastor Dave was
preaching from the housetops, georgann
<chenault@mindspring.com> spake thusly:
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
Actually, one doesn't have to be much above an idiot to be able to use
IDiot Dave's words against him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 03:57:49 PM |
|
|
In article <vvon51945nkjrj9hfdqksf4dalc31lqf9e@4ax.com>,
Pastor Dave <news-group-mail@nospam-tampa-bay.rr.com> wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
But isn't that exactly what the fundy anti-evolutionists like you say,
that evolution makes us cousins to monkeys?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Evolution Boy" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 09:07:35 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
Georgann is actually an evolution-hater just like you, Dave. Why are
you attacking her and calling her an idiot?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Antagonist for God" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
17 Apr 2005 09:26:46 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 14:07:35 GMT, Evolution Boy
<evolutionboy@swbell.net> spake thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote in alt.atheism
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
Once again, you twist the words of those who believe
the Bible and attack them. You are an idiot.
Georgann is actually an evolution-hater just like you, Dave. Why are
you attacking her and calling her an idiot?
Georgann is always on the attack. Don't let her fool
you. She opened up with a volley as soon as she saw
the name, "Pastor Dave". You're just catching it now.
--
Antoagonist for God
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 08:52:39 PM |
|
|
georgann <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in news:BE80805E.5B95A%
chenault@mindspring.com:
George Carlin had it right when he said if we all evolved from
monkeys, why are there still monkeys around? :>)
Fred Stone wrote:
Why are your cousins still around since you were born?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Are you cousin to a monkey? That's a family tree I'd like to explore!
They never send Christmas cards, so we cut them off. :-)
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You know you're over the target when you start receiving flak."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
11 Apr 2005 06:25:19 AM |
|
|
Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:
Féachadóir wrote:
You are. You exist. Life did not always exist, and now exists,
therefore life must have arisen.
How is that life from non life? My life rose from the lives of two
others.
There are two* possibilities. Either abiogenesis occurred
spontaneously, or some deity said 'let there be life'. Either way,
life arose from non-life. The existence of your good self, and every
other living thing on the planet, is evidence of that.
Biogenesis did occur. That was life *from* life.
And if we are to believe the bible account, abiogenesis also occurred.
Genesis, Chapter 1, verses 11, 20, 21, 24 etc.
There was no life, then there was life. That's abiogenesis. There are
also explanations of life that don't involve a creator.
Abiogenesis is not controversial. The argument is over *how* it
occurred, not whether it occurred.
Spontaneous, in this
illustration, would allude to an absence of design. As a RC, I would
have to reject that possibility.
You are of course entitled to the superstition of your choice.
What about consciousness is not naturally explainable? How are you
defining consciousness? For that matter, how are you defining life?
Which step in the path from non-life (lets say, hydrogen atoms) and
life do you consider beyond a natural explanation.
Self awareness is a reasonable enough synonym for consciousness.
Scientific explanation of neurons and electrical charges do not fully
map out the phenomenon, nor its origin. IMO, consciousness is beyond
natural explanation, and is fully in the realm of the supernatural. Life
cannot spring from an inanimate object.*
I'm sorry. "I don't get it" is not an acceptable answer.
What about self awareness is not naturally explainable?
Why is self-awareness evidence of a god? Does self-awareness imply a
soul in your mind?
[*Of course, there are in one sense thousands of explanations. There's
what science says is its current best bet, there's the Genesis myth,
and there's every other myth ever set out by any other religion. For
simplicity sake though, we can restrict ourselves to the supernatural
explanation involving YHWH]
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge.
This is simply untrue. You are either misinformed or lying.
You may reject the
story of Genesis and Adam & Eve, but from past posts, you also reject
poly genesis. Yet, science claims that all people today descend from 6
or 7 sisters.
No, it doesn't. You really shouldn't get your science from tabloids
That would appear to indicate a possibility of one male
and one female in the beginning.
Only if you don't think about how populations actually work.
Ask yourself if all the O'Neills in the world are descended in all
lines from one couple.
Does that mean that the human
evolutionary chain began from *one* random occurrence? That is certainly
a long shot.
So is the lottery, yet people win it.
You are a long shot. Its extremely unlikely you should be here. But
someone had to be here, it might as well be you. Just like the odds
that I will one day win the lottery are remote, but its pretty certain
*someone* will win.
* God created the world from *nothing.* Note that the RC Church does not
repudiate evolution, as long as it is seen as part of the design.
Your faith is your own affair. However, there is no evidence which
requires a supernatural explanation.
OB-SCI: Muckross beach fossils
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 05:32:12 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge.
This is simply untrue. You are either misinformed or lying.
Lying? Why, Gerard, you know me better than that. Neither am I
misinformed, in this particular arena. Macro evolution is theory,
period. Micro ev is certainly all around us. But, micro is *not* the
evolutionary *concept* that sets atheists and God fearing people apart...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
12 Apr 2005 07:57:51 PM |
|
|
Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:
Féachadóir wrote:
Science cannot find any macro evolutionary bridge.
This is simply untrue. You are either misinformed or lying.
Lying? Why, Gerard, you know me better than that. Neither am I
misinformed, in this particular arena. Macro evolution is theory,
period.
Evolution (micro or macro) is the change of allele frequencies over
time. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time.
Changes in allele frequencies have been observed. If you don't
believe me, ask any doctor about penicillen resistant bacteria.
Or ask yourself how a bug can exist that survives by eating nylon, and
*only* nylon, when nylon didn't exist a century ago.
Macro evolution is a fact.
Micro ev is certainly all around us. But, micro is *not* the
evolutionary *concept* that sets atheists and God fearing people apart...
This would make the late great JPII an atheist.
Why do you assume that the split is between atheists and "God fearing
people"? Aren't you aware that some leading evolutionary biologists
are Catholic priests, for example? Or aren't they God fearing?
(And no, I don't mean Fr Des.)
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
13 Apr 2005 04:53:09 AM |
|
|
"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:j7ro51lnids8soijns4j8db2mk3qnr7km3@4ax.com...
....
Lying? Why, Gerard, you know me better than that. Neither am I
misinformed, in this particular arena. Macro evolution is theory,
period.
Evolution (micro or macro) is the change of allele frequencies over
time. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time.
Changes in allele frequencies have been observed. If you don't
believe me, ask any doctor about penicillen resistant bacteria.
Or ask yourself how a bug can exist that survives by eating nylon, and
*only* nylon, when nylon didn't exist a century ago.
Is there no end to God's providence - designing a creature that hibernated
for 6000 years waiting for the
Macro evolution is a fact.
Micro ev is certainly all around us. But, micro is *not* the
evolutionary *concept* that sets atheists and God fearing people apart...
This would make the late great JPII an atheist.
Why do you assume that the split is between atheists and "God fearing
people"? Aren't you aware that some leading evolutionary biologists
are Catholic priests, for example? Or aren't they God fearing?
(And no, I don't mean Fr Des.)
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
13 Apr 2005 01:20:48 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
That was a pretty good definition. Of course, the agnostics aren't
really sure who to believe...:>)
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 09:10:44 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Nr-dnfvBMu-e_sDfRVn-og@comcast.com...
westprog wrote:
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it
is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and
agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
That was a pretty good definition. Of course, the agnostics aren't
really sure who to believe...:>)
The agnostics can be quite certain that macro evolution happens, and be
unsure about God.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
15 Apr 2005 05:45:47 PM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
"Which" evolution?
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 05:49:41 AM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE85BC4D.5C99F%chenault@mindspring.com...
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it
is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and
agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
"Which" evolution?
Creation of new species by means of genetic mutation and natural selection,
according to God's plan for the world.
What about the people who died before 33 AD. Were they forgiven too?
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "georgann" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
22 Apr 2005 06:26:39 PM |
|
|
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
"Which" evolution?
westprog wrote:
Creation of new species by means of genetic mutation and natural selection,
according to God's plan for the world.
What about the people who died before 33 AD. Were they forgiven too?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Depends on if they received Christ when He appeared to them.
--
(`'·.¸(`'·.¸(`'·.¸ ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)¸.·'´)
«´¨`·.¸¸ ¸¸.·´¨ `»
"As Benjamin Franklin left the State House in Philadelphia
on the closing day of the Constitutional Convention, a woman
asked him what kind of government the statesmen had given America.
Franklin replied: 'A republic, Madame, if you can keep it.'
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
(¸.·'´(¸.·'´(¸.·'´ `'·.¸)`'·.¸)`'·.¸)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
22 Apr 2005 06:44:43 PM |
|
|
"georgann" <chenault@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:BE8F006E.5E255%chenault@mindspring.com...
The gap is between the athiests and fundamentalists who believe that it
is
impossible to believe in God and evolution, and the Christians and
agnostics
who realise that there is nothing incompatible.
"Which" evolution?
westprog wrote:
Creation of new species by means of genetic mutation and natural
selection,
according to God's plan for the world.
What about the people who died before 33 AD. Were they forgiven too?
georgann (forgiven since 33 AD) wrote:
Depends on if they received Christ when He appeared to them.
And you know Jeebus appeared to pre-historic man how,
exactly........................?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
Bride of Satan
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 09:05:04 AM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
What about the people who died before 33 AD. Were they forgiven too?
I'm pretty sure God's rules are retroactive, but don't let on to the
Mormons. I'm still tracing out my family...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "Séimí mac Liam" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 09:11:45 AM |
|
|
Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in news:FvGdnaXg15gKhvzfRVn-
hg@comcast.com:
westprog wrote:
What about the people who died before 33 AD. Were they forgiven too?
I'm pretty sure God's rules are retroactive, but don't let on to the
Mormons. I'm still tracing out my family...
Turlough
The JW's believe that everyone before Christ went to hell. On a side note,
be very careful about trusting what the Mormons say about your ancestors.
Lots of bad information to be had from that source.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
13 Apr 2005 01:16:17 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
Evolution (micro or macro) is the change of allele frequencies over
time. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time.
Changes in allele frequencies have been observed. If you don't
believe me, ask any doctor about penicillen resistant bacteria.
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Or ask yourself how a bug can exist that survives by eating nylon, and
*only* nylon, when nylon didn't exist a century ago.
Because, natural adaptation is a function of *micro-evolution.*
Macro evolution is a fact.
Facts are observable in science, or at least exact results are
demonstrated each time an experiment is conducted under the same
conditions, etc. Macro Evolution is not a fact, because it has *never*
been observed in science. What has been observed in science is micro ev,
where genetic variations and natural adaptations have taken place. The
simple difference is, at the end of the day, a rabbit with blue eyes
that gives birth to rabbits with black eyes, has still given birth to
the same species. Macro Ev would certainly be proven, if those newly
born rabbits had sprouted wings, for example, *and* as definitive proof,
succeeding generations continued producing this trait or formation. In
the first case, DNA was made up of the same material, simply
re-arranged. In the second case, Material had to be *added* to the
rabbit DNA to produce the wings, thus, the evolved new species.
IMO, the obstacles to Macro proof ie., the absence of transitional
fossils, interdependencies (life forms that need other life forms to
survive), and trait dependencies (legs or wings, for example, the
absence of which that would render the species unable to feed, hunt, or
escape) may be explained away or at least rationalized. The real
stumbling block is DNA. DNA has a finite composition for each species.
It can be juggled around for variation and adaptational reasons, but the
resulting article is not a new species. To obtain a new species, as
might be attempted in a lab, new genetic material must be added to the
composition. This does not occur in nature, nor does it occur anywhere
along the route of micro evolution. A rose, is a rose, is a rose...
Why do you assume that the split is between atheists and "God fearing
people"? Aren't you aware that some leading evolutionary biologists
are Catholic priests, for example? Or aren't they God fearing?
Most religions have no problem with micro ev. After all, it is a
demonstrable fact. This is what those Catholic priests call evolution.
If macro was ever observed, those priests would still be ok with it, as
long as they could explain it as part of God's plan. As far as species
change in the absence of design, atheists seek proof of it as validation
of their arrogant disbelief in a Creator.
(And no, I don't mean Fr Des.)
I always had the feeling he was COI anyway...:>)
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 09:14:04 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Nr-dnfnBMu9q_MDfRVn-og@comcast.com...
....
Most religions have no problem with micro ev. After all, it is a
demonstrable fact. This is what those Catholic priests call evolution.
If macro was ever observed, those priests would still be ok with it, as
long as they could explain it as part of God's plan.
See the quote I posted from the Pope. He specifically refers to the
compelling evidence of the fossil record. The fossil record is stuffed with
macro-evolution.
Macro-evolution - which can be defined meaningfully as speciation - normally
takes many thousands of years, but as has been shown on this thread, it has
been observed in special circumstances.
As far as species
change in the absence of design, atheists seek proof of it as validation
of their arrogant disbelief in a Creator.
And Christians see it as evidence of the infinite providence of the Creator.
We all see what we want to see. The fundamentalists want a little god
trapped in their little book.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Féachadóir" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 03:21:26 AM |
|
|
Scríobh Turlough <TurloughX@comcast.net>:
Féachadóir wrote:
Evolution (micro or macro) is the change of allele frequencies over
time. The only difference between macro and micro evolution is time.
Changes in allele frequencies have been observed. If you don't
believe me, ask any doctor about penicillen resistant bacteria.
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Before we bother going any further, do you really believe this?
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
14 Apr 2005 06:17:16 PM |
|
|
Féachadóir wrote:
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Before we bother going any further, do you really believe this?
I was trying to be brief, not exact, so you'd comprehend the bottom
line. You can talk about allele frequencies in populations, genetic
drift, DNA, RNA, retroviruses, natural selection, etc, and I'll nod my
head in agreement that these are absolute, demonstrable occurrences.
However, I'll also insist that all of these fall under the heading,
Micro evolution.
You may scoff at my insistence upon the differentiation of Micro and
Macro, and that is because you believe that with enough time and
circumstance, Micro becomes Macro, but that is where I get off the bus.
Trait changes don't rise to the definition I view as Macro evolution.
The species may *look* different, but that little lady from 1500
centuries ago, whose mitochondria we all carry, is still one of us. You
show me the fruit fly that became an insect other than a fruit fly, and
I'll go along with you.
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
15 Apr 2005 06:43:27 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kLudnVfgQ8CcZ8PfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Before we bother going any further, do you really believe this?
I was trying to be brief, not exact, so you'd comprehend the bottom
line. You can talk about allele frequencies in populations, genetic
drift, DNA, RNA, retroviruses, natural selection, etc, and I'll nod my
head in agreement that these are absolute, demonstrable occurrences.
However, I'll also insist that all of these fall under the heading,
Micro evolution.
You may scoff at my insistence upon the differentiation of Micro and
Macro, and that is because you believe that with enough time and
circumstance, Micro becomes Macro, but that is where I get off the bus.
Trait changes don't rise to the definition I view as Macro evolution.
The species may *look* different, but that little lady from 1500
centuries ago, whose mitochondria we all carry, is still one of us. You
show me the fruit fly that became an insect other than a fruit fly, and
I'll go along with you.
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
15 Apr 2005 06:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:kLudnVfgQ8CcZ8PfRVn-ug@comcast.com...
Féachadóir wrote:
Allele frequencies, genetic variations are normal and illustrate micro
ev. Shake up the nucleotides and you can rearrange the genetic code,
resulting in variations of... the *same species.*
Before we bother going any further, do you really believe this?
I was trying to be brief, not exact, so you'd comprehend the bottom
line. You can talk about allele frequencies in populations, genetic
drift, DNA, RNA, retroviruses, natural selection, etc, and I'll nod my
head in agreement that these are absolute, demonstrable occurrences.
However, I'll also insist that all of these fall under the heading,
Micro evolution.
The difference between a man and a mosquito is due to their DNA.
You may scoff at my insistence upon the differentiation of Micro and
Macro, and that is because you believe that with enough time and
circumstance, Micro becomes Macro, but that is where I get off the bus.
Trait changes don't rise to the definition I view as Macro evolution.
The species may *look* different, but that little lady from 1500
centuries ago, whose mitochondria we all carry, is still one of us. You
show me the fruit fly that became an insect other than a fruit fly, and
I'll go along with you.
Macro evolution is evolution that takes a long time. Micro evolution happens
more quickly. Biologists cannot demonstrate processes that take a long time
happening quickly. That's supposed to be an argument?
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
For heaven's sake, Turlough. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do
with evolution.
Simple clue - life on Earth is not a closed system. There's a big power
source, right up there in the sky. That's where the entropy happens.
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Turlough" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
16 Apr 2005 08:59:31 AM |
|
|
westprog wrote:
The difference between a man and a mosquito is due to their DNA.
Ok.
Macro evolution is evolution that takes a long time. Micro evolution happens
more quickly. Biologists cannot demonstrate processes that take a long time
happening quickly. That's supposed to be an argument?
Macro evolution is a theory. To suggest that the difference between
Micro and Macro is just time, would only be logical if there were
transitional fossil models to illustrate the possibility that evolution
was a long term, ongoing process. The abrupt appearance of plants and
animals in strata and the fact that the fossils of most plants and
animals are similar to those alive today, tends to dampen the
possibility of Macro evolution. The reason I use fruit flies as an
illustration, is because geneticists use them to watch numerous
generations in a short span of time. You can get about 25 generations
per year, times a 50 year period, would yield a researcher 1250
generations over his career. Of course, even if his son and grandson
carried on his work, they'd still be witnessing Micro.
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
For heaven's sake, Turlough. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do
with evolution.
Simple clue - life on Earth is not a closed system. There's a big power
source, right up there in the sky. That's where the entropy happens.
Exactly. However, evolution and the 2nd Law are at odds with each other.
I'll get deeper into it once the April 15th shock goes away. I' m having
trouble seeing the screen through all the tears...
Turlough
.
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
17 Apr 2005 05:30:23 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FvGdnavg15jWh_zfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
westprog wrote:
The difference between a man and a mosquito is due to their DNA.
Ok.
Macro evolution is evolution that takes a long time. Micro evolution
happens
more quickly. Biologists cannot demonstrate processes that take a long
time
happening quickly. That's supposed to be an argument?
Macro evolution is a theory. To suggest that the difference between
Micro and Macro is just time, would only be logical if there were
transitional fossil models to illustrate the possibility that evolution
was a long term, ongoing process. The abrupt appearance of plants and
animals in strata and the fact that the fossils of most plants and
animals are similar to those alive today, tends to dampen the
possibility of Macro evolution. The reason I use fruit flies as an
illustration, is because geneticists use them to watch numerous
generations in a short span of time. You can get about 25 generations
per year, times a 50 year period, would yield a researcher 1250
generations over his career. Of course, even if his son and grandson
carried on his work, they'd still be witnessing Micro.
Macro evolution requires a long time before anything happens, but then
things happen comparitively quickly. That's the evidence of the fossil
record.
Precisely how it happens is slightly mysterious, but we have the mechanism
and we have the results.
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
For heaven's sake, Turlough. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing
to do
with evolution.
Simple clue - life on Earth is not a closed system. There's a big power
source, right up there in the sky. That's where the entropy happens.
Exactly. However, evolution and the 2nd Law are at odds with each other.
No, they aren't. All the second law requires is a power source. We can see
this is practice, where a power tool can transform a chunk of amorphous wood
into carved chess pieces.
I'll get deeper into it once the April 15th shock goes away. I' m having
trouble seeing the screen through all the tears...
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Creation |
17 Apr 2005 08:59:53 AM |
|
|
"Turlough" <TurloughX@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:FvGdnavg15jWh_zfRVn-hg@comcast.com...
westprog wrote:
The difference between a man and a mosquito is due to their DNA.
Ok.
Macro evolution is evolution that takes a long time. Micro evolution
happens
more quickly. Biologists cannot demonstrate processes that take a long
time
happening quickly. That's supposed to be an argument?
Macro evolution is a theory. To suggest that the difference between
Micro and Macro is just time, would only be logical if there were
transitional fossil models to illustrate the possibility that evolution
was a long term, ongoing process. The abrupt appearance of plants and
animals in strata and the fact that the fossils of most plants and
animals are similar to those alive today, tends to dampen the
possibility of Macro evolution. The reason I use fruit flies as an
illustration, is because geneticists use them to watch numerous
generations in a short span of time. You can get about 25 generations
per year, times a 50 year period, would yield a researcher 1250
generations over his career. Of course, even if his son and grandson
carried on his work, they'd still be witnessing Micro.
Macro evolution requires a long time before anything happens, but then
things happen comparitively quickly. That's the evidence of the fossil
record.
Precisely how it happens is slightly mysterious, but we have the mechanism
and we have the results.
Only God can trump the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, Ger. He likes to keep
things orderly...
For heaven's sake, Turlough. The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing
to do
with evolution.
Simple clue - life on Earth is not a closed system. There's a big power
source, right up there in the sky. That's where the entropy happens.
Exactly. However, evolution and the 2nd Law are at odds with each other.
No, they aren't. All the second law requires is a power source. We can see
this is practice, where a power tool can transform a chunk of amorphous wood
into carved chess pieces.
I'll get deeper into it once the April 15th shock goes away. I' m having
trouble seeing the screen through all the tears...
J/
SOTW: "God's Footballer" - Billy Bragg
http://homepage.eircom.net/~albedo1/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
