Discussion:
Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
(too old to reply)
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-06 00:36:13 UTC
Permalink
[Ed. Evolution is the greatest hoax since man-made global warming....]

Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
'Intelligent design' defense published in peer-reviewed science journal
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40302
September 4, 2004

The publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of an article
expounding and defending "Intelligent Design" was met with "hysteria,
name-calling and personal attack," according to the report's author.

According to a story in The Scientist, Dr. Steven Meyer's article, "The
origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,"
published online Aug. 28, was greeted with widespread criticism from members
of the society publishing the journal – the Biological Society of
Washington.

According to its website, The Scientist is "an international news magazine
published in print and on the Web. It reports on and analyzes the issues and
events that impact the world of life scientists."

Intelligent Design – which one critic calls "the old creationist arguments
in fancy clothes" – is the "idea that the origin of information is best
explained by an act of intelligence rather than a strictly materialistic
process," Meyer told The Scientist.

In his article, Meyer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, states:
"What natural selection lacks, intelligent selection – purposive or
goal-directed design – provides."

The Discovery Institute "supports research by scientists and other scholars
developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design."

Many scientists reportedly expressed shock and outrage that an article
questioning evolution would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific
journal. According to The Scientist:

Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education, said, "many members of the society were stunned about the
article. … It's too bad the Proceedings published it," Scott added. "The
article doesn't fit the type of content of the journal. The bottom line is
that this article is substandard science."

The Panda's Thumb, a Web log dealing with evolutionary science, calls
Meyer's article "a rhetorical edifice out of omission of relevant facts,
selective quoting, bad analogies, and tendentious interpretations."
However, National Center for Biotechnology Information staff scientist
Richard Sternberg told The Scientist the three peer reviewers of Meyer's
paper "all hold faculty positions in biological disciplines at prominent
universities and research institutions, one at an Ivy League university, one
at a major U.S. public university, and another at a major overseas research
institute."

All found the paper "meritorious, warranting publication," he said.

Moreover, Sternberg told the journal he and Meyer have falsely been labeled
creationists by the scientific community, noting: "It's fascinating how the
'creationist' label is falsely applied to anyone who raises any questions
about neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory. The reaction to the paper by some
[anti-creationist] extremists suggests that the thought police are alive and
well in the scientific community."

The Discovery Institute's communications director, Robert L. Crowther,
explained the difference between intelligent design and creationism.

"Dr. Meyer is a well-known proponent of intelligent design and that is what
his paper is about," Crowther told The Scientist. "To try and characterize
him as a creationist is just an attempt to stigmatize him and marginalize
his paper, all the while avoiding the scientific issues that it raises."

Meyer puts it even more bluntly: "I have received a number of private
communications from scientists expressing their agreement or intrigue with
the arguments that I develop in my article. Public reaction to the article,
however, has been mainly characterized by hysteria, name-calling and
personal attack."

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Peter Terry
2004-09-05 10:06:00 UTC
Permalink
"Anti-Multiculty" <***@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message news:***@hotmaiil.com...
KKK---------------------------------->
Ned Latham
2004-09-08 01:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Terry
KKK---------------------------------->
You have no moral ground for accusing anyone of racism, you lying
little shit:

* "Peter Terry" wrote in <***@news.iprimus.com.au>:
* >
* > You Jews arent overly bright are you,

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <***@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7
fritz
2004-09-06 23:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Anti-Multiculty <***@hotmaiil.com> wrote in message news:***@hotmaiil.com...
|
| [Ed. Evolution is the greatest hoax since man-made global warming....]

Psst. The theory of evolution has published roots dating back to 1858.
When did global warming get a guernsey ??

| Anti-evolution paper met with 'hysteria, name-calling'
| 'Intelligent design' defense published in peer-reviewed science journal

I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague, malaria,
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us humans.

'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is a 'designer'
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-11 05:50:37 UTC
Permalink
Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
responsible for all that also.
Post by fritz
I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague, malaria,
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us humans.
'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is a 'designer'
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Insider
2004-09-10 15:04:50 UTC
Permalink
Indeed, Fritz for that matter.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
responsible for all that also.
Post by fritz
I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague,
malaria,
Post by fritz
polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us
humans.
Post by fritz
'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there
is
Post by Anti-Multiculty
a 'designer'
Post by fritz
it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty
"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
fritz
2004-09-11 00:05:53 UTC
Permalink
Anti-Multiculty wrote ..
| Likewise, i'd be interested to know how you think evolution is supposedly
| responsible for all that also.

You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent design'.
The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the coffins
of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm

Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.
Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.


| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > I'd be interested in how 'intelligent design' explains bubonic plague,
| malaria,
| > polio, ebola, AIDS, STDs, birth disorders, degenerative mutations,
| > genetic diseases, etc. etc. etc.
| > In short, all the things in this world designed to fuck up life for us
| humans.
| >
| > 'Intelligent design' doesn't address the broader issue of why if there is
| a 'designer'
| > it must be one mean mother fucking bastard.
|
| --
| JimB
| http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
| Union Against Multi-Culty
|
| "Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
|
|
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-12 04:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent design'.
Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
whole theory is scientifically unsound. People like you are the ones who
have clouded judgement because you are so keen for an alternative, any
alternative, that you don't wait for science to prove it.
Post by fritz
The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the coffins
of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm
On this website, the claim is made that; "..In Escherichia coli a synonymous
site (where no amino acid change is caused by a base-changing mutation) is
estimated to mutate once in approximately 1010 years..."

Excherichia Coli is a 5000 gene per chromosome colon bacteria which has been
studied for over a century, and hasn't yet changed into anything else other
than more Escherichia Coli. The same goes for every other species out there
you want to throw up as an example, no change into a different species has
ever taken place.

Consider these words by an evolutionary scientist....

"...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
Molecular Evolution, p. 111.
Post by fritz
Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
we have seen the problems of mutation in the countless experiments on the
fruit fly. All forced mutations on that little critter failed each and every
time to produce a new species.
Post by fritz
Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.
It isn't though, even evolutionary scientists have a hard enough time
joining the dots.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Donald McCaskey
2004-09-11 17:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
whole theory is scientifically unsound.
Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?
Post by Anti-Multiculty
"...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
Molecular Evolution, p. 111.
Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity so
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to the
next generation.

Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision, whatever.
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the next
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
positive mutations in humans:

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html

Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't as powerful as the
Vulcan groin kick but it is more politically correct!!
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-13 04:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald McCaskey
Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?
In every way.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity so
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to the
next generation.
Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision, whatever.
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the next
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.
Give me an example where this has happened.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
In your own words, explain what is occurring in that website you presented.

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Donald McCaskey
2004-09-12 16:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Donald McCaskey
Scientifically unsound? In what way, pray tell?
In every way.
Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Donald McCaskey
Of course there is a selection process between meaningful and nonsense
mutations. Nonsense mutations are normally unstable and detrimental to
life. The mutated organism dies normally before reaching sexual maturity
so
Post by Donald McCaskey
does not reproduce. The mutation, therefore, is not carried through to
the
Post by Donald McCaskey
next generation.
Compare to a meaningful mutation that provides an organism with an
advantage. It may be bigger horns, keener hearing, colour vision,
whatever.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Since it gives the organism an advantage over its rivals, it allows the
organism to survive to sexual maturity and make an attractive mate. The
organism's DNA, including the mutation, is therefore copied down to the
next
Post by Donald McCaskey
generation. Over several thousand years, these mutations multiply to the
extent we have species divergence.
Give me an example where this has happened.
Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Donald McCaskey
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
Well that, I'm afraid, is a complete untruth. Try here for examples of
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html
In your own words, explain what is occurring in that website you presented.
The website is giving evidence for evolution so what is occurring in that
website is a series of articles supporting the theory of evolution. (This
is quite basic stuff, btw).

Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.

Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't as powerful as the
Vulcan groin kick but it is more politically correct!!
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-14 06:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald McCaskey
Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.
Thank you.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?
Man - Chimpanzee???? Horse, Zebras and Donkey's all belong to the equine
family, none of them are different species (ie all can still breed with each
other) and none of them were Lizards previously. Same with Lions and Tigers.
Post by Donald McCaskey
The website is giving evidence for evolution so what is occurring in that
website is a series of articles supporting the theory of evolution. (This
is quite basic stuff, btw).
Great, shouldn't be too difficult for you to explain some specifics on that
website then.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.
Neither, as you say it is a "general" statement, in fact some Asians love
Alcohol and some Europeans do not, nothing to do with genetics at all. What
evidence do you have to support the view that it is a genetic
predisposition?

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Donald McCaskey
2004-09-13 19:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Donald McCaskey
Well I'm just blown away by the depth and insight of your argument.
Thank you.
Post by Donald McCaskey
Man - chimpanzee. Horse - zebra. Lion - tiger. Do you want more?
Man - Chimpanzee???? Horse, Zebras and Donkey's all belong to the equine
family, none of them are different species (ie all can still breed with each
other) and none of them were Lizards previously. Same with Lions and Tigers.
Why then are mules and other equine crosses are almost alway barren. The
same goes with ligers and tigons - almost always barren. If they are
exactly the same species, as you claim, their offspring should be as fertile
as the cross between two horses or two lions.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Donald McCaskey
Here's a very basic example of beneficial mutations. Asians, especially
those of Chinese descent, are generally less tolerant of alcohol than West
Europeans. This is because the genes responsible for dealing with alcohol
in the body are different in Chinese and West European people. Now either
this is because Chinese and West European people are different species or
it's because they are one species where a gene level mutation has taken
place, a mutation that is stable and not detrimental to human life. You
choose.
Neither, as you say it is a "general" statement, in fact some Asians love
Alcohol and some Europeans do not, nothing to do with genetics at all. What
evidence do you have to support the view that it is a genetic
predisposition?
How about studies by Bosron WF and Li TK on genetic polymorphysim of human
liver alcohol and aldehyde dehydrogenases, and their relationship to alcohol
metabolism and alcoholism. Hepatology 6:502-10, 1986, or the research by
Wall TL, Peterson CM, Peterson KP, et al on alcohol metabolism in
Asian-American men with genetic polymorphisms of aldehyde dehydrogenase as
appeared in Ann Intern Med 1997;127(5):376-9.

Here's an extract from one of these studies, quoted verbatim, for your
perusal:
"After ingestion of ethanol (the kind of alcohol most beverages contain),
the body metabolizes it by first converting it to a substance called
acetaldehyde in the liver by an enzyme called "alcohol dehydrogenase". The
acetaldehyde is then broken down to acetate by a second enzyme called
aldehyde dehydrogenase. This second enzyme has important clinical
manifestations, particularly for people of Asian ancestry. 50% of Asians
(including Native Americans who apparently share genetic ancestry with
Asians) have a mutation in the gene for aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH) which
causes the enzyme to have decreased activity (either from lower levels to
start with, or because the enzyme deteriorates in the body faster). This
causes a rapid build up of the acetaldehyde which causes the flushing
(redness), increased pulse and decreased blood pressure. These unpleasant
symptoms supposedly are related to a decreased rate of alcoholism among
those with the mutant gene -- though I am not so sure about that from what I
have observed among the Japanese. (The last statement is just my own empiric
observations.)

Among Asian and Asian American medical circles, people seem to frequently
ask one another (socially) if they "have the enzyme" -- implying ALDH, of
course. I have noticed that my Chinese colleagues "without the enzyme"
refrain from drinking because they are embarassed by the flushing and really
dislike the side effects. When in Japan, however, I seem to notice many
"sarari man" turning beet red in izakaya without much concern, and go right
on drinking. Perhaps because the genetic mutation is so common, turning red
after some drinks is not considered unusual there? Perhaps because of the
high stress, social drinking and flushing is considered acceptable? When my
family attended Nikkei/Nihonjin parties, I noticed that the Japanese
nationals were the ones who freely consumed, but the Nikkei of my parents
generation did not. Maybe this has to do with their growing up during the
Prohibition and Internment (alcohol was apparently not allowed in the
camps) -- as well as their growing up in Western culture where turning red
was not considered normal?

I think moderation is key. I personally do have some "enzyme" though alcohol
will sometimes make my asthma act up or cause my cheeks to become blotchy if
I have too much. But the key here is to know one's limit and stay within it.
I noticed that I could drink some Japanese men under the table
(embarassing), but am a lightweight compared to most of my non-Asian
friends. This seems to be a source of surprise and amusement for other
Asians, who have been shocked that I can consume a glass of wine and not be
affected. Or sake -- yes, I like chilled sake, but heated sake always tastes
like gasoline to me."

The general gist is that oriental asians tend to lack the gene required make
the enzyme needed to process ethanol quickly. Other research confirms that
West Europeans have an abundance of the enzyme and the gene required to
create the enzyme is switched on. This research points to environmental
factors for the difference between West Europeans and oriental asians - West
Europeans used fermentation techniques to remove impurities and disease from
water.

Don
--
The Vulcan neck pinch isn't as powerful as the
Vulcan groin kick but it is more politically correct!!
fritz
2004-09-12 00:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Anti-Multiculty wrote ...
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > You have to get over the idea of a 'responsible' designer or god. That is
| > just a delusion that is clouding your thinking.
| > Evolution isn't 'responsible' for anything, it is just the best theory
| > we have at the moment to explain the way life is. It is way, way better
| > than anything the creationists have proposed, including 'intelligent
| design'.
|
| Evolution isn't responsible for anything because it is a complete
| fabrication. There has been *no* conclusive evidence put forward by any
| scientists as to the origin of life on earth, or anywhere else, indeed the
| whole theory is scientifically unsound. People like you are the ones who
| have clouded judgement because you are so keen for an alternative, any
| alternative, that you don't wait for science to prove it.

Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
Are you a creationist ?
Admit it or deny it !

| > The ability of science to analyse DNA has put the final nails in the
| coffins
| > of the fools who still believe in 'creation science'.
| > For a quick explanation of the evolution of diseases go to
| > http://web.onetel.net.uk/~jbwhammond/disevo.htm
|
| On this website, the claim is made that; "..In Escherichia coli a synonymous
| site (where no amino acid change is caused by a base-changing mutation) is
| estimated to mutate once in approximately 1010 years..."

That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria in the
recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.

| Excherichia Coli is a 5000 gene per chromosome colon bacteria which has been
| studied for over a century, and hasn't yet changed into anything else other
| than more Escherichia Coli. The same goes for every other species out there
| you want to throw up as an example, no change into a different species has
| ever taken place.

The process of evolution has certainly taken place.
Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.
We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that takes
a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific evidence
that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
Such as the fossil record.
Such as the selective breeding of animals.
Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.

| Consider these words by an evolutionary scientist....
|
| "...The usual answer to this question is that there was plenty of time to
| try everything. I could never accept this answer. Random shuttling of bricks
| will never build a castle or a Greek temple, however long the available
| time. A random process can build meaningful structures only if there is some
| kind of selection between meaningful and nonsense mutations...."-*A.
| Szent-Gyorgyi, "The Evolutionary Paradox and Biological Stability," in
| Molecular Evolution, p. 111.

The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor advantage
to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
The incremental improvements all add up.


| > Now A-M, perhaps you would like to explain why your 'intelligent
| > designer' is such a mean fucking cunt.
|
| Mutations, like those highligted in your previous post, are never positive,
| we have seen the problems of mutation in the countless experiments on the
| fruit fly. All forced mutations on that little critter failed each and every
| time to produce a new species.

Do you really believe in an 'intelligent designer' or not ?
YES OR NO ?

Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
Face the facts sonny.
The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all but a few crack-pots.

| > Or you might deny a creator and concede that evolution really is the best
| > scientific explanation we have at present for life as we observe it.
|
| It isn't though, even evolutionary scientists have a hard enough time
| joining the dots.

Put up or shut up.
What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
We are waiting...........

Fritz




| JimB
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-13 04:26:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
Are you a creationist ?
Admit it or deny it !
Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated by big mouths
like you.
Post by fritz
That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria in the
recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?
Post by fritz
The process of evolution has certainly taken place.
LOL!
Post by fritz
Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.
Witness what exactly?
Post by fritz
We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that takes
a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific evidence
that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
survive the change whilst they are "changing"?
Post by fritz
Such as the fossil record.
Fossil records show what exactly?
Post by fritz
Such as the selective breeding of animals.
You mean cross-breeding? LOL!
Post by fritz
Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.
Nothing to do with evolution.
Post by fritz
The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor advantage
to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
The incremental improvements all add up.
It has yet to happen though.
Post by fritz
Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?
Post by fritz
Face the facts sonny. The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all
but a few crack-pots.

Actually it isn't.
Post by fritz
Put up or shut up.
What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
We are waiting...........
Let's not play that game, let's play "I have solid evidence to back up my
theory of evolution and will present it". C'mon, the group is waiting to
hear it......

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Paolo Pizzi
2004-09-12 18:28:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated
by big mouths like you.
...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-14 05:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Geologists are quite keen on that theory too. What evidence do you have to
the contrary?
Post by Paolo Pizzi
...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...
--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Paolo Pizzi
2004-09-13 19:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Geologists are quite keen on that theory too.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Post by Anti-Multiculty
What evidence do you have to the contrary?
What evidence you have that ANY geologist
thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old?
Ever heard of carbon-dating? I guess not.
Post by Anti-Multiculty
Post by Paolo Pizzi
...while the truth is, OF COURSE, that the universe is only
6,000 years old and was created in six days. Only stupid
idiots like Einstein, Sagan and Hawking would dare to
question that...
fritz
2004-09-12 23:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Anti-Multiculty wrote ...
|
| >"fritz" <***@address.com> wrote in message;
| > Evolution is the state-of-the-art. FACT !!!
| > Are you a creationist ?
| > Admit it or deny it !
|
| Evolution is nothing of the sort, it is a fable perpetuated by big mouths
| like you.

Hey, are you a bit thick or what ? Answer the fucking question !
Are you a creationist or not ? Admit it or deny it !


| > That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
| > Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria
| in the
| > recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
|
| Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?

Why are so obsessed with new species ?
Evolution does not require a new species to appear in your lifetime.
Evolution is occuring, nevertheless. Get over it.


| > The process of evolution has certainly taken place.
|
| LOL!

|
| > Witness the diversity of species and the fossil record.
|
| Witness what exactly?

Evolution and the fossil record.

| > We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that
| takes
| > a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific
| evidence
| > that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
|
| How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
| survive the change whilst they are "changing"?

Simple. You really should do some research.
Transitional forms have an advantage that leads to their survival over
forms without the advantage. A small advantage is better than no advantage.

| > Such as the fossil record.
|
| Fossil records show what exactly?

Evolution, dumbarse.
Read The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.

| > Such as the selective breeding of animals.
|
| You mean cross-breeding? LOL!
|
| > Such as the selective cultivation and improvement of crops.
|
| Nothing to do with evolution.

Sigh.
Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

| > The fallacy in that quote is that evolution only requires a minor
| advantage
| > to be passed on in order to produce a more successful biological system.
| > The incremental improvements all add up.
|
| It has yet to happen though.

It is happening.
Evolution at work:
The tale of a tail - New gene found in fruit flies could impact human medicine
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
Wow, evolution demonstrated in a fruit fly.
Now, what was that you were saying about fruit-flys not evolving ?

| > Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
| > dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
|
| Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
| evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?

Of course.

| > Face the facts sonny. The modern theory of evolution is accepted by all
| but a few crack-pots.
|
| Actually it isn't.

Yes it is. The vast majority of scientists agree evolution is the best explanation.
Only a few lunatic creationist nutters disagree.
These fruitcakes are the same ones who say the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
The same ones who say the speed of light is changing to fit in with their
6,000 year old Earth fantasies. What a fucking joke they are !!!!!
Are you one of them too, A-M ?


| > Put up or shut up.
| > What theory do YOU propose instead of evolution ?
| > We are waiting...........
|
| Let's not play that game, let's play "I have solid evidence to back up my
| theory of evolution and will present it". C'mon, the group is waiting to
| hear it......

There is plenty of solid evidence for evolution. If you have trouble finding it,
just type 'evolution + science' into your search engine. Watch out for any sites
that have 'creation' in their URL, they are sure to be full of junk science.
I note that you are too embarrassed to confess that you are a creationist.
Not surprising, really. They have no credibility whatsoever.


|
| --
| JimB
Anti-Multiculty
2004-09-14 06:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by fritz
Hey, are you a bit thick or what ? Answer the fucking question !
Are you a creationist or not ? Admit it or deny it !
You are so see-through lol.
Post by fritz
| > That is 10 to the power 10, a fucking long time.
| > Yet E-Coli has apparently recently picked up a gene from another bacteria
| in the
| > recent past forming the O157 sequence. Go figure.
|
| Has it turned into a new species of its own accord? Hmm?
Why are so obsessed with new species ?
Errr..Cause it forms the basis of evolution?
Post by fritz
Evolution does not require a new species to appear in your lifetime.
Evolution is occuring, nevertheless. Get over it.
Of course it does. Should it be occuring then logically the examples would
be visible all the time, even in my lifetime.
Post by fritz
Evolution and the fossil record.
What about them fossils?
Post by fritz
| > We have not directly observed the emergence of a new species because that
| takes
| > a very long time, but we have observed enough supporting scienctific
| evidence
| > that clearly indicates evolution is the best theory so far.
|
| How long is a long time, and if it takes a long time, then how do species
| survive the change whilst they are "changing"?
Simple. You really should do some research.
Transitional forms have an advantage that leads to their survival over
forms without the advantage. A small advantage is better than no advantage.
But it takes a long time to develop this "advantage" so how do they survive
in the meantime?
Post by fritz
| > Such as the fossil record.
| Fossil records show what exactly?
Evolution, dumbarse.
Read The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin.
Was this the same Darwin, in the same Origin of Species, which said of
Fossil records.....

". . Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely
graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious
objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."-*Charles
Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between
Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.
Post by fritz
Sigh.
Read Chapter One - Variation Under Domestication,
The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin
Breeding is not evolution though.
Post by fritz
It is happening.
The tale of a tail - New gene found in fruit flies could impact human medicine
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/02.08/01-evolutionatwork.html
Wow, evolution demonstrated in a fruit fly.
Now, what was that you were saying about fruit-flys not evolving ?
Species do not change, they produce different varieties, but they do not
evolve.

BTW I thought this quote was good.....

"...Malaria kills about 1 million children per year. Most of these deaths
are due to Plasmodium falciparum, which, like other strains, is transmitted
by the bite of anopheles mosquitoes. Another comparatively new mutation
conveys resistance to P. falciparum, but at a high price. It causes sickle
cell anemia, a painful inherited blood disease that occurs mainly in blacks.
Sickle cell anemia, however, is not usually fatal...."

Sounds good eh? But, did you know that the Sickle Cell Anemia might prevent
Malaria, but it actually prevents the carrier from absorbing food and
oxygen?
Post by fritz
| > Why are you so obsessed with fruit-flys ? They are at an evolutionary
| > dead-end, why would you expect them to mutate into a new species ????
|
| Because they have been studied extensively and were put up as proof of
| evolution. Have you done any reading on this issue at all?
Of course.
Doesn't really seem like it....
Post by fritz
Yes it is. The vast majority of scientists agree evolution is the best explanation.
Only a few lunatic creationist nutters disagree.
These fruitcakes are the same ones who say the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
Based on scientific fact.
Post by fritz
The same ones who say the speed of light is changing to fit in with their
6,000 year old Earth fantasies. What a fucking joke they are !!!!!
Are you one of them too, A-M ?
This coming from a proposal which has inconsistent dating methods...LOL!!

--
JimB
http://www.antimulticulture.0catch.com
Union Against Multi-Culty

"Abolish Multiculturalism and String Up The Traitors"
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...