Denial of Evolution VII (2015)

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

no.
but . . . to save the mod team the time wasting effort to confirm my answer i will retract.
OTOH, i AM concerned about one of my posts about this subject.
don't ask, you and i already had a dialog about it.

thanks for posting the conclusion of the conference.

BTW, lewin wasn't just a journalist, he was an editor for science.
in my opinion a prestigious position.
he didn't get there by shits and giggles.

why then did he contact NAIG?.
why does NAIG make such a "big deal" out of it when its not a big deal?
why didn't NAIG contact science to clue them in on how ayala was allegedly being "misquoted" . . .by one of the editors of science?
he said those words james, and said them in reference to the gaps in the record.
these gaps are real, they are not genetic because you can't get DNA samples from fossils.
so, ayala was essentially confirming that no transitional fossils exist for those gaps.
ayala didn't retract anything??
are you serious?
"i don't know how lewin got that quote but i didn't say it" (paraphrased)
you don't call that a retraction?

you keep referring to me as a creationist.
you know i don't like it.
i've told you on the board, i've told you in PM's
so, when it comes to insults, take your whiney ass somewhere else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I deny creationism and evolution in the sense that each miss boat in their own way. Creationism, to me, is about the rise our modern human consciousness, which allowed the formation of civilization. This change in human behavior, required a departure from natural instinct, via choice and willpower.

According to science, the time frame of Genesis, coincides with the invention of writing. In the beginning was the word, and the word was God. Many people, especially linguists, assume that human consciousness requires the matrix of language. The invention of writing allowing coordinated human consciousness; civilization. The first word written was God; in the beginning was the word, God. Written language allowed global teaching tools, contracts for commerce, a way to fix knowledge, rights of ownership, and laws for behavior, etc. Human consciousness, with this new community matrix of thought and language, carved in stone, departs from nature; Adam. Like any invention, not everyone will see it and get in on the ground floor. Those who do separate from the herd.

In terms of evolution, the current theory does not include an analysis of the impact of water in proportion to its contribution to life. If we remove water from any level of life, from the DNA, to cells, to the entire animal, but leave all the organics, nothing happens. It is dead. There is no life in the organics apart from water.

We can't replace the water with any other solvent to make the organics come back to life. Water is unique to life, since life evolved in water, starting from simple chemicals. As life evolved, life became tailored to water to where they fit together like a hand in a glove. Without water there is no life and nothing can replace it to make the organics come back to life. I am talking about reality and not hypothetical speculations of alternate life never proven in the lab.

Evolution, as is, leaves out the important water variable, so it can't be right, by default. It gives water lip service but does not even teach that the DNA has a double helix of water needed for its functionality. The result is this current version of evolution can't stand on its own without a government shake down. We don't need government to force the periodic table down peoples throats, nor is this challenged by religion, because this is real and not an illusion. Science that uses politics is not really science, but needs the skills of scammers and bullies to cheat reality science.

 

well then, why didn't "the man himself" contact science a and tell them "you either correct this situation or i'm going to sue your balls off"?
he contacted NAIG, but couldn't quite get himself to write to science??????????????????????????????????
seriously?
judge: after due consideration . . . YOU ARE GUILTY.
criminal: i didn't do it, i swear.
see james?
he said it james, the entire piece was practically about these gaps ayala was referring to.
the piece points out the geological problems of fossilization, the piece discusses these gaps, and ayala was referring to them when he made the quote.
he writes to NAIG but not to science.
science isn't responsible for peer reviewed articles, but it IS responsible for what the editors themselves print and this was not a peer reviewed article.

until science says they got it wrong, the original article stands.
don't you think science knows that?

science said he said it, the man himself said he didn't.
whom would you believe james?

these gaps are TYPICAL of the record, they aren't a "here and there" occurrence.

so, when "the man himself" said "i didn't say that" when science says he did, that isn't a retraction?
really?
uh, why is the word "unfairly" all of a sudden making an appearance?
do you have portable goalposts?

uh, that "somebody else" just happened to be one of the most respected names in science.

but wait, didn't you say that ayaals didn't say those words, didn't NAIG print ayala didn't say those words?
science says he did.
again, who do you believe james?
a personal website over science?

no, but it definitely warrants an explanation from science that they got it wrong.
ever hear of "libel and slander"?
science could lose a lot of pocket change for that james.

you would be hard pressed to find a single quote of mine that says "god did it"
OTOH, you can find quite a few of them that argues both sides.

when it comes right down to it, science has no frikken clue as to how we got here.
all they are doing is going on the very valid ASSUMPTION that we arose from a "pond of goo".
and that's ALL it is, an ASSUMPTION.
science has ZERO evidence that matter "becomes alive".
science has ZERO evidence on how long a species takes to "morph" into something else.
science has ZERO evidence that a plant can ever turn into a man.
science has next to no evidence that "small changes accumulate".

on top of all of that, i wonder how much evolution relies on the laws of heredity to pass itself off as legit.
heredity works for species, so it must work for diversity, right?
science has ZERO evidence of that.

why do you equate "i find things becoming alive a ludicrous concept" with creationism?
on top of that, why don't you ever quote any of my posts where i slam the fuck out of religion?
cherry pick much?

 

you know, i don't see the word "unfairly" anywhere in your quote.

anyway, it wouldn't change my answer.

about the single post i'm "concerned" about:
it was edited by persons unknown, i know for a fact i didn't edit it in that fashion.
it was shortly after i posted the quotes from science.
i haven't seen any such thing since though.

 

Completely untrue. That's like saying "science has no frikken clue as to how a car works" because there are fluid dynamics within the cylinder during combustion that are hard to model.

Science has made matter "become alive" (or at least become a growing, reproducing assembly of molecules) so they have quite good evidence.

Science has observed these species morph into other species:
Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)
Raphanobrassica
Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)
Madia citrigracilis
Brassica
Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)
Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)
Stephanomeira malheurensis
Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)
Fruit fly (Drosophila paulistorum)

We have quite strong evidence that all the steps necessary to do that are both possible and likely. (However, no one is claiming that a MODERN plant is going to turn into a man.)

We have quite strong evidence that small changes, over time, lead to large changes. Ever been to the Grand Canyon? Seen a Chihuahua or a Great Dane? Seen a whale?

 

of course, we have life walking out of test tubes all the time.
i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates this.

same animal, more fur.
you know, like heredity related?

we have no evidence at all that a plant can "morph" into a man.
again, i'm sure you can direct me to a legit link that demonstrates your position.

well, the article i posted says the opposite.
one of the leading proponents of evolution has said it.

we are in the science section billvon.

 

Yes we're in the science section, Leopold.

I see you are making the usual conflation of abiogenesis with evolution that creationists like to make in order to discredit evolution. They point to the fact that we do not yet have a proper theory of abiogenesis and then pretend this means evolution somehow falls down as a result. This is stupid (or more likely disingenuous). It's like saying you can't have a theory of the lifecycle of stars without knowing what caused the Big Bang.

Same goes for not having evidence that "a plant can morph into a man". Anyone who understood evolution would see that description as an idiotic travesty of evolutionary processes. The evidence is abundant in the fossil record, in the development of foetuses and in DNA similarities, for the hierarchy of relatedness of living things. That means there are three, independent, sources of evidence for evolution, one of which was not available at all in Darwin's day. Yet evolution actually correctly predicts the similarities and differences we find in DNA studies. That is a classic test of a scientific theory.

As for gaps in the fossil record of course it is full of gaps. James has explained why. But so what? In science we join the dots. We interpolate from data points, to infer what happens in between. This is just normal science.

So frankly, your arguments against evolution look like a simple rehash of the poor arguments used by creationists. You even make use of creationist websites to support them. Yet you have claim not to be a creationist. I recall you've made this claim before. Perhaps it's time you let us know what your views actually are, then? It would be a lot easier to respect your point of view if you would have the courage to articulate it.

 

Sure, here are a few:
===============

Scripps Research Institute Scientists Create First Living Organism that Transmits Added Letters in DNA 'Alphabet'
LA JOLLA, CA—May 7, 2014—Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute (TSRI) have engineered a bacterium whose genetic material includes an added pair of DNA “letters,” or bases, not found in nature. The cells of this unique bacterium can replicate the unnatural DNA bases more or less normally, for as long as the molecular building blocks are supplied.
=============

The Immortal Molecule: Scripps Research Scientists Develop First Examples of RNA that Replicates Itself Indefinitely Without Any Help from Biology
Findings Could Inform Biochemical Questions about How Life Began

LA JOLLA, CA, January 8, 2009—One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.
================
Artificial molecule evolves in the lab

19:00 08 January 2009 by Ewen Callaway
New Scientist

A new molecule that performs the essential function of life - self-replication - could shed light on the origin of all living things.

If that wasn't enough, the laboratory-born ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand evolves in a test tube to double itself ever more swiftly.

"Obviously what we're trying to do is make a biology," says Gerald Joyce, a biochemist at the Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California. He hopes to imbue his team's molecule with all the fundamental properties of life: self-replication, evolution, and function.

Joyce and colleague Tracey Lincoln made their chemical out of RNA because most researchers think early life stored information in this sister molecule to DNA. And unlike the stuff of our genomes, RNA molecules can catalyse chemical reactions.
============================================

The same way a whale is the same animal as a mouse, just less fur.

Here's the link to a book that does just that:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Ancestors-Tale-Pilgrimage-Evolution/dp/061861916X

A plant morphing into a man took billions of years. Some important events along the way:
Algae to Choanoflagellates - the change from single cell to multi-cell organisms
Choanflagellates to placozoa - first thing you'd probably call an animal
Lancelets - examples of first things with any kind of a spinal cord

We are indeed. And evolution is one of the scientific discoveries that now has an incredible amount of support from several, widely disparate fields.

 

Leopold, you have been given a host of examples of evolution. You propose ludicrous counter-examples: a man evolving from a plant. Is your purpose to troll?

This is indeed the science section. Time to end the farce.

 

All creatures are the "same animal, more fur". That's the whole point, leopold.

Very good - you're beginning to grasp that heredity and evolution are intertwined.

 

i've been given plenty of examples of adaptation.
i have been given zero examples of a plant morphing into a man.
or a single cell morphing into a man.
or for that matter all the components necessary to make a man morphing into a man.
don't you get it?
the fossil record DOES NOT support that.

no.

i would like to, but unfortunately this ayala quote must be resolved first.

billvon,
biologically speaking, none of your samples can be considered life.

 

how does pointing out the fact conflate to "creationist"?
let's get this straight from the get go, i will not respond to any quote that refers to me as a creation, or even HINTS at the phrase.

 

i didn't say heredity and evolution is intertwined.
and neither did science.

it seems logical to equate the two, but there is no evidence they are.

 

So you believe bacteria are not alive? How about algae? Amoebas? Mold? Moss? Grass?

 

They are not equal. Heredity is part of evolution. There are three ingredients that give you evolution:
1) Heredity, the ability to inherit traits from an ancestor.
2) Mutation, random (and heritable) changes in a genome.
3) Selection, a mechanism that increases the odds of survival for a certain trait.

 

yes, just like i consider dolly the sheep alive, and for the same reason.
copy/pasting genes, then inserting that into a cell is not "creating life in a test tube".

 

Wait a minute. You said none of the samples could be considered life. One of them was bacteria. Now you are saying bacteria ARE alive?
OK then.

And what about creating self-sustaining, evolving, eating, reproducing complex molecules from chemicals? You still don't consider that life? What's the functional difference between that and a bacterium?