| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"IknowHimDoYou" |
| Date: |
11 Dec 2003 11:14:43 AM |
| Object: |
Evolution's Possiblities |
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and director
of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion of
Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
| User: "Didymos" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 04:16:57 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com...
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and director
of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
Anyone else notice the double negative?
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion of
Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Reichenbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 01:22:22 PM |
|
|
"IknowHimDoYou" <IknowHim@leavingsoon.com> wrote in message
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com...
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and director
of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion of
Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
--
Recte Faciendo Neminem Timeas
Is it opinion? Is it fact? Is it truth?
Is it a lie?
Frank
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 11:32:44 AM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com:
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and
director of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of
appearances, no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes
in it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer
believe, but which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion
of Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
If you haven't taken the man totally out of context, then he's just a
fool. I suspect, though, that you have badly misrepresented him, a
common way for creationists to try to bolster their last cause.
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical virus
insertions in the chimp and human genomes? Science explains this by
postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps. What's YOUR
explanation?
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 05:00:39 PM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical virus
insertions in the chimp and human genomes? Science explains this by
postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps. What's YOUR
explanation?
I like Johnson's{1} explanation to this best: "Both before and after the
triumph of Darwinism, classifiers agreed that the relationships so
uncovered are not arbitrary but rather express some genuine property of
the natural order. Essentialists who rejected evolution thought that the
natural groups conformed to the patterns of an archetype, a blueprint
existing in some metaphysical realm such as the mind of God. The
Darwinists discarded the archetypes and substiturted a belief in common
ancestors, material beings which existed on earth in the distant past"
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
{1} Phillip Johnson _darwin on trial_ 89
.
|
|
|
| User: "_AnonCoward" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
14 Dec 2003 08:24:42 AM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com...
:
:
: Dave Oldridge wrote:
:
: > Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical
: > virus insertions in the chimp and human genomes? Science explains
: > this by postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps. What's
: > YOUR explanation?
:
:
: I like Johnson's{1} explanation to this best: "Both before and after
: the triumph of Darwinism, classifiers agreed that the relationships
: so uncovered are not arbitrary but rather express some genuine
: property of the natural order. Essentialists who rejected evolution
: thought that the natural groups conformed to the patterns of an
: archetype, a blueprint existing in some metaphysical realm such as
: the mind of God. The Darwinists discarded the archetypes and
: substiturted a belief in common ancestors, material beings which
: existed on earth in the distant past"
Ralf:
Metaphysical archetypes cannot be recognized as such, only assumed from
a theological framework. Common descent on the other hand can be
inferred from the data - there is a world of difference between the two.
The scientific community of Darwin's time advanced the idea of common
descent because there is direct, physical evidence that those "material
beings" existed on the earth in the distant past. As the man said, the
nested hierarchy of living system and the evidence of a succession of
species (with descent with modification thrown in for good measure) does
appear to represent some "genuine property of the natural order". Common
descent appeals to what we known and can logically deduce; metaphysical
archetypes appeal to a notion that is presupposed yet undemonstrable.
: In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
: form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
: Mammal
: Primate
: Chimp
: Man
: and instantiate a Chimp and a man
: bobo := Chimp new.
: adam := Man new.
: Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
: archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
Ralf:
This is a fundamentally flawed analogy. OOP "classes" are merely
abstractions used by programmers to define a block of code that displays
a predetermined set of properties and behaviors. Instances of such
classes allow programmers to access those properties and behaviors in
their code in a predetermine fashion that is cleaner, safer (by "hiding"
aspects of the code from view or manipulation by other parts of the
code) and scales more easily. The virtues of OOP are the result of the
compiler that generates the code - the "hidden" parts of the code are
not absolutely off-limits, it's just that the compiler imposes the
isolation during the build process. None of this has any bearing or even
any correlation with living systems. Classes (and objects instantiated
from them) may not have "ancestors" but living things do - the former is
not a good model for the latter.
This analogy also fails because of how one class can be used to give
rise to new "child" or "sub" classes. If I have an original class A with
properties P1 and P2, any classes that "inherit" from this class
automatically come with those properties. No matter how many generations
of subclassing I may wish to expand this to, all classed derived
(directly or indirectly) from class A possess those properties.
Furthermore, those properties are immutable - if P1 does not serve the
need of class B (which is inherited from class A), all it can do is
override (shadow or mask) the property with its own verion. The original
functionality remains unchanged in class B, it is just not accessable
unless the overriding function chooses to invoke it internally. However,
traits in living organisms (the analog of properties and behaviors in
OPP classes) can, and in fact do, change and even disappear entirely in
subsequent generations. The OOP analogy does not encompass this
adequately.
Further, your choice of example classes is not well chosen. There is no
such thing as a "Mammal" per se in nature. Rather, there are a number
different animal species that share certain characteristics in common,
but the grouping of "Mammal" is strictly a human constructions. The
label "Mammal" only services to describe certain defining
characteristics that various species share in common and which we use to
categorize them. These categories form a hierarchy of life that, while
abstract, clearly reflects some "genuine property of the natural order"
and provides us with a useful tool for further study and analysis.
Only species exist in any objective sense (by species, I mean groups of
(typically) interfertile organisms which share a similar genome and that
are reproductively isoloated from other groups of organisms). And
species in turn are made up of individual creatures that are themselves
the offspring of other creatures. Because species are not static, they
can diverge into different strains that eventually become sufficient
differentiated from the parent group that they *become* reproductively
isolated and thus form a new species. By tracing back the ancestoral
history of individual organisms (not directly of course but rather by
virtue of fossils that provide a proxy for making the trace), we can
determine that all organisms do indeed have common ancestors and that we
all ultimately related by virtue of one (or more likely several, imo)
original cellular organisms that lived in the distant past.
Ralf
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
* ^~^ ^~^ *
* _ {| |} {| |} _ *
* /_``>*< >*<''_\ *
* (\--_)++) (++(_--/) *
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nature is the canvas of creation and evolution but one of
the brushes. Religion points to the mind of God; Science
reveals its unfolding. The subjective apprehends knowledge
while the objective facilitates understanding.
In all things, yin and yang - ever flowing, one into the
other; always overtaking, always overtaken.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 06:32:37 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical
virus insertions in the chimp and human genomes? Science explains
this by postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps. What's
YOUR explanation?
I like Johnson's{1} explanation to this best: "Both before and after
the triumph of Darwinism, classifiers agreed that the relationships so
uncovered are not arbitrary but rather express some genuine property
of the natural order. Essentialists who rejected evolution thought
that the natural groups conformed to the patterns of an archetype, a
blueprint existing in some metaphysical realm such as the mind of God.
The Darwinists discarded the archetypes and substiturted a belief in
common ancestors, material beings which existed on earth in the
distant past"
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 09:10:37 AM |
|
|
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
Primate has no actual instances so has no progency.
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 10:38:42 AM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
It still fits as an ancestor. It must be defined first before any specific
instance. Just because it happens quickly in computer memory doesn't change
the temporal order. I suppose you could assume it was defined in the
Creator's memory only, but that assertion doesn't fit the observed facts.
There is no actual object in biology which is a superclass. Rather every
single organism is a specific instance. Therefore, any descendents of these
specific instances will have many peculiarities of that descent--including
viral inserts, pseudo-genes, etc. This is what is observed.
Primate has no actual instances so has no progency.
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
The fact that designed artifacts can fit a nested hierarchy is not at issue.
Of course, humans create nested hierarchies! However, they also routinely
violate them. Are you actually positing a Creator that has less design
capabilities than humans?
Also, note the nested hierarchy *in time* of fossil organisms. They just
found another example. Funny, isn't it, how it fits the nested hierarchy in
time.
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1551/4262001.html
Article in Science (requires subscription)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/302/5652/1899
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
13 Dec 2003 02:42:07 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
It still fits as an ancestor. It must be defined first before any specific
instance. Just because it happens quickly in computer memory doesn't change
the temporal order. I suppose you could assume it was defined in the
Creator's memory only, but that assertion doesn't fit the observed facts.
There is no actual object in biology which is a superclass. Rather every
single organism is a specific instance. Therefore, any descendents of these
specific instances will have many peculiarities of that descent--including
viral inserts, pseudo-genes, etc. This is what is observed.
If all an organism had were "pecularities of descent" there would be
nothing that is common to all instances and we couldn't say "it's a
Human!". All humans have something in common, if we are to predicate
anything of them, such as "all humans share an ancestor". What is common
to all humans? Not any bit of matter, for your body has no matter in
common with mine. But if that which is common to all humans cannot be
material, it must be immaterial.
In this model class is to instance as metaphysical is to temporal realm.
The class is prior in causality, but simultaneous in time, with all it's
instances, past, present, and future.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
13 Dec 2003 08:57:31 PM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FDB799F.1040606@psalmweaver.com...
Zachriel wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of
how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
It still fits as an ancestor. It must be defined first before any
specific
instance. Just because it happens quickly in computer memory doesn't
change
the temporal order. I suppose you could assume it was defined in the
Creator's memory only, but that assertion doesn't fit the observed
facts.
There is no actual object in biology which is a superclass. Rather every
single organism is a specific instance. Therefore, any descendents of
these
specific instances will have many peculiarities of that
descent--including
viral inserts, pseudo-genes, etc. This is what is observed.
If all an organism had were "pecularities of descent" there would be
nothing that is common to all instances and we couldn't say "it's a
Human!". All humans have something in common, if we are to predicate
anything of them, such as "all humans share an ancestor". What is common
to all humans? Not any bit of matter, for your body has no matter in
common with mine.
<cut>
But if that which is common to all humans cannot be
material, it must be immaterial.
There are many "material" things in common between humans. This is an
obvious observation. You can reference taxonomy or comparative anatomy.
In this model class is to instance as metaphysical is to temporal realm.
The class is prior in causality, but simultaneous in time, with all it's
instances, past, present, and future.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
14 Dec 2003 10:44:39 PM |
|
|
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FDB799F.1040606@psalmweaver.com...
Zachriel wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of
how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
It still fits as an ancestor. It must be defined first before any
specific
instance. Just because it happens quickly in computer memory doesn't
change
the temporal order. I suppose you could assume it was defined in the
Creator's memory only, but that assertion doesn't fit the observed
facts.
There is no actual object in biology which is a superclass. Rather every
single organism is a specific instance. Therefore, any descendents of
these
specific instances will have many peculiarities of that
descent--including
viral inserts, pseudo-genes, etc. This is what is observed.
If all an organism had were "pecularities of descent" there would be
nothing that is common to all instances and we couldn't say "it's a
Human!". All humans have something in common, if we are to predicate
anything of them, such as "all humans share an ancestor". What is common
to all humans? Not any bit of matter, for your body has no matter in
common with mine. But if that which is common to all humans cannot be
material, it must be immaterial.
Actually, any devotee of "fuzzy logic" will tell you that it's perfectly
possible to have an identifiable class when none of the defining
characteristics of that class are possessed by all members of the class.
This requires that membership in the class be a matter of degree, rather
than a simple dichotomy between members and nonmembers -- but then, that's
exactly what "transitional forms" are: they are neither full members of the
set they are evolving into, nor yet clearly excluded from that group.
But that's not Zachiel's point. His point is that many of the homologies
between human and other primate genomes don't fit copying from some
archetype that was never, itself, instantiated as an individual. An
endogenous retrovirus or pseudogene (with mutations that cause shared ERVs
to be more similar between, e.g. humans and chimps than between humans and
orangutans) makes no sense as something copied from a "hominoid genome
archetype." It makes sense as a legacy from a single individual organism
who was conceived with this particular mutation or insertion, which was
inherited by all his (or her) descendants.
All humans can share certain "peculiarities of descent," because we
inherited them from the individuals to whom they were, originally, peculiar.
In this model class is to instance as metaphysical is to temporal realm.
The class is prior in causality, but simultaneous in time, with all it's
instances, past, present, and future.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
13 Dec 2003 09:13:46 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3FDB799F.1040606@psalmweaver.com>...
Zachriel wrote:
"Alan Wostenberg" <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
It still fits as an ancestor. It must be defined first before any specific
instance. Just because it happens quickly in computer memory doesn't change
the temporal order. I suppose you could assume it was defined in the
Creator's memory only, but that assertion doesn't fit the observed facts.
There is no actual object in biology which is a superclass. Rather every
single organism is a specific instance. Therefore, any descendents of these
specific instances will have many peculiarities of that descent--including
viral inserts, pseudo-genes, etc. This is what is observed.
If all an organism had were "pecularities of descent" there would be
nothing that is common to all instances and we couldn't say "it's a
Human!".
The standard biological answer is that we all share in a common breeding
pool. As long as we can interbreed with other humans, we are human. This
is obviously not extensively tested.
All humans have something in common, if we are to predicate
anything of them, such as "all humans share an ancestor". What is common
to all humans? Not any bit of matter, for your body has no matter in
common with mine. But if that which is common to all humans cannot be
material, it must be immaterial.
The commonality is our abilty to function, specifically in the process of
breeding mentioned above. The commonality is that our forms are sufficently
consistant to do that job.
In this model class is to instance as metaphysical is to temporal realm.
The class is prior in causality, but simultaneous in time, with all it's
instances, past, present, and future.
Is there a mule archetype? Why do these different archetypes seem to be
formed (ie first expressed) only after another very similar archetype is
expressed (temporally and geographically)?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 10:26:05 AM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com:
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is
Primate. Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the
question of how viral insertions got there, since those aren't even
functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
Uh, in object oriented programming, all descendant classes will inherit
the properties and methods of primate except where later changes have
been made. Does this not sound familiar?
Primate has no actual instances so has no progency.
Wrong. If you are instantiating any descendant class, it will still
contain whatever it inherits from Primate.
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places
to fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today.
Rather they appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
The essentialists have been wrong because, you see, it is the ERRORS in
the genes, not the functional parts that we are speaking of here. If you
steal my screenplay and actually submit a manuscript with the same ten
random spelling errors as in my own original work, the chances are a
court will nail you for copyright violation. Well we have violated the
chimp copyright in exactly this manner, not ten times but hundreds.
What this shows is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. The
alternative is that Christianity is hopelessly wrong about the nature of
the creator (and probably about the wisdom of worshipping such an entity
rather than attempting exorcism).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 03:26:02 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com>...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
In object oriented computing languages we create nested heiarchies of
form all the time, without common ancestors. If I define:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Man
and instantiate a Chimp and a man
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Man new.
Then bobo and adam will share lots of code sequences by virtue of the
archetype "Primate", but won't have a common ancestor.
But you see, actually they DO have a common ancestor and it is Primate.
Moreover, your comparison is not really pertinent to the question of how
viral insertions got there, since those aren't even functional things.
David, Primate is a superclass, not an ancestor.
Primate has no actual instances so has no progency.
Alan, we have talked about this before. Your smalltalk inheritance and
biological inheritance do not work the same. The closest approximation
of this would be the class hierarchy which you are alluding to.
In smalltalk, to create an individual, you go to the class of the intended
new being and create a new one. In living organisms, the parents of the
new individual carry copies of the class definition which they combine to
produce the new one. It is their differences and potential mistakes in
creating their copies that variation and subsequently through the new
one's interaction with its evironment natural selection can occur with
resulting evolution.
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
What is an archetype and how does it work with my personal creation,
for example?
Joe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alan Wostenberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
13 Dec 2003 01:46:22 PM |
|
|
Joe Blow wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com>...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
What is an archetype and how does it work with my personal creation,
for example?
An archetype is another word for class or form. They exist in a
metaphysical realm, such as the mind of God. In the Smalltalk example
the class is to instance as metaphysical to physical realm. So if adam
and eve were your parents I'd model your creation as follows.
Given the class hierarchy which exist in the metaphysical, not the
physical realm:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Human
The events in time are:
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Human new.
eve := Human new.
abel := Human from: adam and: eve.
Notice The first member of each Class are ex-nihilo creations from the
archetype (we message the Class, in Smalltalk). Subsequent members are
begotten through the natural generation{1}. So you are a descendent of
adam and eve. They are not descendents but ex-nihilo creations, like
Bobo the first Chimp. You have similar dna to Bobo *not* because of a
common physical ancestor, but because of a common metaphysical archetype
Primate.
I think modified creationism explains the available evidence better than
the purely naturalistic ones.
-- Alan
Talk to Mom! http://www.thelightofheaven.com
{1} In the case of humans each individual is an ex-nihilo creation in
which parents provide biological material and God, the rational soul.
This is not the case with nonrational organisms like bobo.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe Blow" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
13 Dec 2003 09:01:50 PM |
|
|
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3FDB6C8E.3000504@psalmweaver.com>...
Joe Blow wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in message news:<3FD9DA6D.2070509@psalmweaver.com>...
Dave Oldridge wrote:
Alan Wostenberg <awostenbergNospam@psalmweaver.com> wrote in
news:3FD8F717.2040708@psalmweaver.com:
I repeat, are there gene devils poking viruses into identical places to
fool science? We see no evidence of such insertions today. Rather they
appear to have a large random dimension.
No devils. Substitute archetypes for common ancestors,
as essentialists before and after Darwin have done,
and you need no devils.
What is an archetype and how does it work with my personal creation,
for example?
An archetype is another word for class or form. They exist in a
metaphysical realm, such as the mind of God. In the Smalltalk example
the class is to instance as metaphysical to physical realm. So if adam
and eve were your parents I'd model your creation as follows.
Given the class hierarchy which exist in the metaphysical, not the
physical realm:
Mammal
Primate
Chimp
Human
The events in time are:
bobo := Chimp new.
adam := Human new.
eve := Human new.
abel := Human from: adam and: eve.
Notice The first member of each Class are ex-nihilo creations from the
archetype (we message the Class, in Smalltalk). Subsequent members are
begotten through the natural generation{1}. So you are a descendent of
adam and eve. They are not descendents but ex-nihilo creations, like
Bobo the first Chimp. You have similar dna to Bobo *not* because of a
common physical ancestor, but because of a common metaphysical archetype
Primate.
I think modified creationism explains the available evidence better than
the purely naturalistic ones.
This means that God was directly involved in the creation of each original
pair of each species. The evidence shows that species arose throughout the
last 3 billion years or so which is not consistant with the Biblical
account. The evidence also shows that a species seems to always follow
directly in time from another very similar species. That observation is
not explained by your archetype theory. The evidence also shows that
sets of species have chemical DNA similarities that match the geologic
fossil evidence showing a nested hierarchy rather than a set of
independant archetypes.
Can you explain why you think the archetypical creation theory fits the
available evidence better than evolution?
Joe
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 10:02:11 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns944E61554E5DAdoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com:
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and
director of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of
appearances, no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes
in it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer
believe, but which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion
of Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
If you haven't taken the man totally out of context,
Fundie evolutionary mantra #25, attack the messanger.
then he's just a
fool.
Fundie evolutionary mantra #26 Attack the witness.
I suspect, though, that you have badly misrepresented him,
Fundie evolutionary mantra #40 reimage the statement.
a
common way for creationists to try to bolster their last cause.
Fundie evolutionary mantra #60, attack any opposition to the religion of
evolution with religious zeal.
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical virus
insertions in the chimp and human genomes?
How about a common Creator?
Science explains this by
postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps.
Postulating means that they don't know.
What's YOUR
explanation?
Asked and answered.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 08:44:12 AM |
|
|
"Michael" <mikeburt@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:mikeburt-1112032302110001@192.168.1.55...
In article <Xns944E61554E5DAdoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com:
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and
director of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of
appearances, no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes
in it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer
believe, but which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion
of Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
If you haven't taken the man totally out of context,
Burt: Fundie evolutionary mantra #25, attack the messanger.
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, being totally bankrupt of morals and ideas, thrashes
wildly with nonsensical replies.
then he's just a
fool.
Burt: Fundie evolutionary mantra #26 Attack the witness.
Tom: Tee hee hee, Burt, being totally bankrupt of morals and ideas, thrashes
wildly with nonsensical replies.
I suspect, though, that you have badly misrepresented him,
Burt: Fundie evolutionary mantra #40 reimage the statement.
Tom:Tee hee hee, Burt, being totally bankrupt of morals and ideas, thrashes
wildly with nonsensical replies.
a
common way for creationists to try to bolster their last cause.
Burt: Fundie evolutionary mantra #60, attack any opposition to the religion
of
evolution with religious zeal.
Tom:Tee hee hee, Burt, being totally bankrupt of morals and ideas, thrashes
wildly with nonsensical replies.
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical virus
insertions in the chimp and human genomes?
Burt: How about a common Creator?
Tom: Tee hee hee, he asked for a sensible explanation. Are you so stupid
that you don't understand the word "sensible"? Unless your god is totally
incompetent why would he do something so stupid?
Science explains this by
postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps.
Burt: Postulating means that they don't know.
Tom: Tee hee hee, you need to understand the meaning of the word postulate
as used in science.
What's YOUR
explanation?
Burt: Asked and answered.
Tom: Tee hee hee, no he doesn't want a nonsensical answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Oldridge" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 01:49:33 AM |
|
|
(Michael) wrote in
news:mikeburt-1112032302110001@192.168.1.55:
In article <Xns944E61554E5DAdoldridgsprintca@24.69.255.211>, Dave
Oldridge <doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou) wrote in
news:IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com:
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and
director of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of
appearances, no one [of any importance or learning] no longer
believes in it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no
longer believe, but which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the
religion of Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and
ignorant, indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their
impossible religion on these news groups.
If you haven't taken the man totally out of context,
Fundie evolutionary mantra #25, attack the messanger.
In your case, it's merited, since you have already demonstrated a habit
of lying to make your case.
then he's just a
fool.
Fundie evolutionary mantra #26 Attack the witness.
The fact is, you're a self-made moron and don't care one whit for truth.
If you're an example of what Christianity teaches, no wonder so many
around you are becoming atheists.
I suspect, though, that you have badly misrepresented him,
Fundie evolutionary mantra #40 reimage the statement.
In other words you HAVE misrepresented him.
a
common way for creationists to try to bolster their last cause.
Fundie evolutionary mantra #60, attack any opposition to the religion
of evolution with religious zeal.
Fundy creationist deception #69. Refuse to address any criticism real or
implied of their deceitful apologetics. Instead, libel the critic.
Do you have any SENSIBLE explanation for the hundreds of identical
virus insertions in the chimp and human genomes?
How about a common Creator?
Not a very sensible explanation, since it implies a stupid or malicious
creator. But then maybe you made your own god in your own image. That
would explain the stupidity and malice.
Science explains this by
postulating a common ancestor for humans and chimps.
Postulating means that they don't know.
It means that they think this is a rational, sensible explanation for the
phenomenon. Apparently you don't have one. You just claim that God is
stupid and malicious and did it to fool us.
What's YOUR
explanation?
Asked and answered.
Asked and answered with a really stupid and untenable answer, UNLESS you
really do believe that God is malicious and stupid, which I can see,
since you may have made a false god in your own image...
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
Paradoxically, most real events are highly improbable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "HoundDog" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 07:57:51 PM |
|
|
(IknowHimDoYou) wrote in message news:<IknowHim-1112030914430001@pm4-09.kalama.com>...
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and director
of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion of
Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
Tje only problem with this quotation you cite is that Lemoine DID NOT
MAKE IT, according to CNRS [i.e., the National Center for Scientific
Research in France].
A good discussion of why IKHDY misleading statement may be found at:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html
HD
Top Ten Signs You're a Christian
author not known
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 (few 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 few
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: "Thore Schmechtig" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 11:55:56 AM |
|
|
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html:
"Paul Lemoine was an ATHEIST, and he was against the theory of
evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin
of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit
materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that
when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing
the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the
[more general idea] of evolution itself."
(Capitalization by me)
So you see even...
....even this quote does not prove anything I-know-***** wants it to
prove.
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: "Matt Silberstein matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
11 Dec 2003 03:52:35 PM |
|
|
In alt.religion.christian I read this message from
IknowHim@leavingsoon.com (IknowHimDoYou):
Evolution's Possiblities
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and director
of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of appearances,
no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes in
it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer believe, but
which they maintain for their people."
So you see even the professionals don't really believe in the religion of
Evolution. This faith is left to the unlearned and ignorant,
indoctrinated believers many of which try to sell their impossible
religion on these news groups.
What year was that? Where was it published? And where did you
read it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Midwinter" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolution's Possiblities |
12 Dec 2003 05:12:20 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <matts 2nopam@ix netcom.nospamcom> wrote:
Paul Lemoine, president of the Geological society of France and
director of the Natural History Museum in Paris has written:
"The theory of evolution is impossible. At base, in spite of
appearances, no one [of any importance or learning] no longer believes
in it...Evolution is a kind of dogma which the priests no longer
believe, but which they maintain for their people."
What year was that? Where was it published? And where did you
read it?
I understand he wrote something similar in the Encyclopedie Francais Vol.
5, published at some time during the 1950s (as quoted on
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html):
"It results from this explanation that the theory of evolution is not
exact ... Evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer
believe, but which they uphold for the people. It is necessary to have the
courage to state this if only so that men of a future generation may
orient their research into a different direction."
There is clearly a considerable difference between "the theory of
evolution is impossible" and "the theory of evolution is not exact".
However, without an exact reference to the original text it is difficult
to judge the veracity of IKnowHim's quotation. Unfortunately I have been
unable to locate a web-based version of the original text in English (I do
not speak French). However, this site goes on to comment:
"Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution
because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living
beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although
this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory
of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically
[how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution
itself."
--
Midwinter
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
