Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Time For Class Proving Evolution

I was sort of thinking along those lines and how tons of resources and $$ are totally squandered in this pursuit of hoping to find mom & dad.

That money could go for something....like maybe education or something.

Wait a minute...still squandering in today's schools.

Maybe feed the poor then.

Not the Christian thing to think but wouldn't feeding the poor will only promote and support poorness?

Perhaps John had never heard of neutral mutations, linked genes, exon and gene duplication, silencing, epigenetics or a bunch of other things that totally invalidate his argument. if he was a high school student I might believe that. but his early publication record and history show he should have known about all these things. He didn't argue them away, he just ignores them and presented an argument he knows is false, which is clearly not supported by observational or experimental data.

No, not at all.

Have you read the original Gould and Eldridge paper?

Would you like to?

You're right....it isn't the Christian thing to think of.

Your are FOS. Prove me wrong.

John knew about the molecular genetics you mention. But he got religion and he willingly put on the blinders on himself.

God, by Biblical definition, is perfect and what he created could not be anything but perfect.

Anything changed from the original perfection by definition has to be bad.

Makes calculating frequency of deleterious mutations a whole lot easier. No Chinese calculus required.

No one has to wonder why his former colleagues dismiss his writings on ID as pseudoscience.

Civil discourse is really an impossibility with you - isn't it?

Well, look around you. Does everyone look exactly like you?
Yes or no?

Do you think that at least some of those differences might be genetic?
Yes or no?

If the answers to the above two questions are yes - then where do you suppose that genetic variation came from?
Mutations not mutations?

BTW, I'm still waiting on your answer to my early set of questions. Particularly #3. Note that your answers to the first two questions in that early post dictates that your answers to the first two questions here must also be yes. So, now what?

There are quite a few papers ( peer reviewed and replicated), something that John's "theories" haven't been.

Try looking this one up...

PNAS June 10, 2008 vol. 105 no. 23 7899-7906

It's really too bad you have your head in the sand. He discovered the problems and THEN looked for a better explaination.

I must assume you're joking.You didn't come from an ape. Zoologically, you are an ape.

Didn't the gradual disappearance of legs via mutation aid the various species of snakes in taking full survival advantage of their various niches? Same could be said for the loss of whale legs via the same process.

First, I DID answer your silly questions dickweed, and secondly your above post belies a fundamental ignorance of the difference between genetic variability and a mutation.

I will one more [bleep] time, restate the questions you schitbirds keep dodging, and are apparantly unable to answer:

1) The laws of thermodynamics demand a universe that is winding down. That is EXACTLY what is observed scientificaly with the genomes of today's flora and fauna. We have only a FRACTION of the species, and therefore the genetic variation, that has existed from the dawn of time, whenever that was (I for one, don't presume to know)

2) Each and every [bleep] time you darwinians are questioned about humongous gaps in the fossil record about the origins of present species (not just man) you state categorically that there are no gaps, then when quotes from prominent darwinians who say there are are cited, you tap dance and say that isn't really what he said, he was still talking about millions and million of year, which is a [bleep] lie, which makes you bastards liars. So, pony up or STFU.

And Brentd, LISTEN THIS TIME Schitbird, I never, ever denied that species don't evolve, so don't quote some silly-assed response about living humans having different genes as evidence that we evolved from "self-replicating" molecules. Your [bleep] great-grandpa may be a goddam virus, but mine ain't.

And Carbon12, you love to disparage religion and the religious in particular. What you are too [bleep] stupid to understand is you are about as religious as those ignorant azzes who kneel towards mecca five times daily, you just have a different set of idols. Go [bleep] yourself.

John discovered what he thought was a problem and being the scientist that he was, he did look for a better explanation. The explanation that he came up with had little utility in the real world and was rightly dismissed as pseudoscience by the whole of the academic community.

Believe stuff you apparently hardly understand at your own peril. Just consider that what you hope is true is dismissed by a lot of smart guys that make a living at knowing what to base their scientific work on. Not a few of them also believe in God. You mostly hear them praying when grant renewals are due.

Uhh....NO.

Clarification: my post above, written in the "wee hours" wasn't meant to imply that I think you are always wrong but never in doubt that you are right. Nope. It s just your dogmatism that reminded me of said person (who[/b]was[b] often wrong).

Hey dude, bite our own dick. You already have no legs to stand on.
You did not and cannot answer those questions and you know it.

You can play all the thermodynamics you want. Still won't stop evolution from happening. If you want to go there, reconcile mutations with entropy and you are home free. Evolution is not an issue for thermodynamics - and vice versa.

You don't get the idea of gaps and fossil records. You keep making up stupid statements like turtles hatching birds.. So, you've lost credibility that you never had.

You don't understand the first thing about speciation. Actually, a lot of folks here don't understand it very well, but you have made special efforts to avoid understanding it. Congratulations! You and Swampman have a lot in common that way.

Being a dickhead like you are, I don't really hope for any evolutionary improvement in your attitude either. So, why not go elsewhere as this place has nothing to offer you that knows everything regardless of reality?

TAK,

OK. Point taken.

If you did sucked up the courage to answer BrentD's questions 1,2 and 3 in anyway that was coherent, you would have learned something of value about yourself.

Too bad. Apparently there is nothing more to suck up.

The laws of thermodynamics demand that the universe as a whole is winding down. This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] What does this have to do with evolution? The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.
However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it seen so often in nature?


Agreed. I have heard estimates (more like wild guesses) that 98% of all species that ever lived are now extinct. It would be mighty crowded if they weren't. If a species died out without leaving descendents its genome is lost. Many, now extinct, species left decendents and their evolved genome caries on. Every time a new individual is sprouted, hatched or born its genome is a variation of that of its parents, so variations appear just as fast as they disappear.

There are obviously plenty of gaps in the fossil record. Name a scientist in a relevant field who said otherwise.
The rest of your second point is incoherent. I guess, and it is only a guess, that you are talking about Gould and rapid evolution. When the prevailing view was tha evolution took place at a steady rate Gould came up with the idea that it takes place in fits and starts. I posted this before but here is what Gould, himself had to say in Punctuated Equilibria, Eldredge & Gould, 1972.
From the Statement: (3) "The theory of allopatric (or geographic) speciation suggests a different interpretation of paleontological data. If new species arise very rapidly in small, peripherally isolated populations, then the great expectation of insensibly graded fossil sequences is a chimera. A new species does not evolve in the area of its ancestors; it does not arise from the slow transformation of all its forbears. Many breaks in the fossil record are real.
(4) The history of life is more adequately represented by a picture of �punctuated equilibria� than by the notion of phyletic gradualism. The history of evolution is not one of stately unfolding, but a story of homeostatic equilibria, disturbed only �rarely� (i.e., rather often in the fullness of time) by rapid and episodic events of speciation".
From the final paragraph: "The norm for a species or, by extension, a community is stability. Speciation is a rare and difficult event that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium. That so uncommon and event should have produced such a wondrous array of living and fossil forms can only give strength to an old idea: paleontology deals with a phenomenon that belongs to it alone among the evolutionary sciences and that enlightens all its conclusions�time".

The entire paper is easily found on the net.

"Time" huh, always more [bleep] "time" with you darwinian dolts. In logic, that is called the "infinite regress", you drive the arguement into a corner, where no one can follow. Well, I ain't buyin' the schit you're sellin', 'cause you knuckleheads have presupposed a 3.8 billion year history of the earth and cooked up a timeline based on fossils layed down in one locale in England. Then you have the audacity to quote jackazzes like Gould who, at once, talk out of both sides of their mouths, and say that "very rapid" changes resulted in entirely new species, but the changes were still far to slow to have ever been observed. Bull [bleep] schit.