PDA

View Full Version : Teach me evolution



Oepty
05-03-2005, 01:50 PM
As a creationist based solely on the Bible's teaching I reject evolution. Following discussion on this board I did some reading and I have some queries, some things I wish clarified. I will write some things here as I understand them, but I am certain I will get something wrong so please correct me.

Evolution states that we all came about from a single ancestor that was the first life. This simple creature was able to replicate itself. Over time this creature, through mutations, changed and became more complicated. Eventually things evolved so that instead of having a creature that could replicate it self we now have animals, and some plants as well I think, that rely on a merging of genetic material from two of the species, male and female. Why did this change occur? Why is need to members of species better than have self replication?

Scott

Rincewind
05-03-2005, 02:03 PM
Evolution states that we all came about from a single ancestor that was the first life. This simple creature was able to replicate itself. Over time this creature, through mutations, changed and became more complicated. Eventually things evolved so that instead of having a creature that could replicate it self we now have animals, and some plants as well I think, that rely on a merging of genetic material from two of the species, male and female. Why did this change occur? Why is need to members of species better than have self replication?

Scott,

Is your question, "how did sexual reproduction evolve and why does it seem to be favoured over asexual reproduction in complicated organisms?"?

JGB
05-03-2005, 03:00 PM
Freddy are you open and ready to learn about evolution or is this another attempt at a religion versus non religion thread?

Oepty
05-03-2005, 03:23 PM
This thread is about giving me a forum to ask the evolutionists of this forum questions about evolution. It is not about me trying to prove creation using science, as I believe that is pointless for me to try. I believe the whole creation science movement is doomed to failure. I intend to ask questions and try to understand, but given my beliefs and the almost impossibility of the completely removing them from the way I ask questions, I will probably ask things in a more critical way than a totally undecided person.
Scott

Oepty
05-03-2005, 03:24 PM
Scott,

Is your question, "how did sexual reproduction evolve and why does it seem to be favoured over asexual reproduction in complicated organisms?"?

Well that question is something like I was try to ask. We can start there if you like.

Scott

antichrist
05-03-2005, 03:25 PM
i am sure you have already done a search and found hundreds of evolution site. For a strigent atheist view of evolution look up 'american atheists' or just look in the mirror.

Cat
05-03-2005, 06:43 PM
Well that question is something like I was try to ask. We can start there if you like.

Scott


Asexual reproduction is for Muslims, Jews & Catholics ; sexual reproduction is for everyone else!

Rincewind
05-03-2005, 08:04 PM
Well that question is something like I was try to ask. We can start there if you like.

Scott,

I suggest wide reading of science based book and good websites (not all are good) would be a more economical and reliable way for you to advance your education. My knowledge in the subject is amatuerish at best, but I'll do my best to do a little reading and give a bare bones response.

Basically the reason sexual reproduction is favoured is because it can lead to faster evolution rate with a lower extinction rate. There is a hypothesis that sexual reproduction is better at removing unfavourable mutations from the gene pool and provides protection from disease and parasite arms-races (this last point is called the Red Queen hypothesis).

As to how sexual reproduction evolved. It seems likely that a super-species would have evolved both male and female sexual organs. Then the benefits of cross organism reproduction (above) over self fertilisation would result in some species evolved into specific sexes and the opposite sexual organs would have become unnecessary in each of the sexes, and would have eventually disappeared.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 09:18 AM
Dave and Pete, please keep to the topic. If you want to discuss no the existence of good or whatever your posts are about, do it elsewhere. So Dave, in answer to the question in your sig. line, just go. ;)

Cat
06-03-2005, 06:37 PM
Dave and Pete, please keep to the topic. If you want to discuss no the existence of good or whatever your posts are about, do it elsewhere. So Dave, in answer to the question in your sig. line, just go. ;)

Boring! Come on Barry, don't get so tetchy or we'll have to call you Boring Barry!

If you must know, the thing that distinguishes sexual from asexual reproduction is that in the former genetic material is transferred to the recipient. So bacteria can divide asexually, in which case they are identical to the parents apart from any denovo mutations that occur in the process, but they can also recieve genetic material from other bacteria in the form of a phage which is then incorporated into the host genome.

So sexual reproduction evolved from this primitive ability to transfer genetic material, some organisms became more specialised at the transfer, but in primitive organisms the transfer can often go both ways, eg a nematode possesses male and female organs.

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 08:49 PM
So sexual reproduction evolved from this primitive ability to transfer genetic material, some organisms became more specialised at the transfer, but in primitive organisms the transfer can often go both ways, eg a nematode possesses male and female organs.

I thought you had a degree in genetics.

Cat
06-03-2005, 09:03 PM
I thought you had a degree in genetics.


Human Genetics

Alan Shore
06-03-2005, 09:07 PM
Boring! Come on Barry, don't get so tetchy or we'll have to call you Boring Barry!

Lister: You've changed you know Kryten. You're getting tetchy.
Kryten: Now sir, you know what happens when you call me tetchy.
Lister: Well that's what I'm calling you, tetchy, tetchy!
Kryten: It's just as well I can't hear you.
Lister draws on the whiteboard TETCHY and waves it in Kryten's face.
Kryten: That's it! Now you've done it!

*fight ensues*

(From Season 5 - Quarantine)

Rincewind
06-03-2005, 09:42 PM
Human Genetics

OK I was just expecting a slightly more indepth description for the reasons why sexual reproduction is such an evolutionary winner. The main reasons I could find as an interested amatuer was the efficient removal of deliterious mutations and the Red Queen hypothesis regarding host-virus arms-race. There is a cost to having sexual reproduction and the Red Queen components argue that many asexual reproducer are either "boom-and-bust" type lifeforms (like bacteria) or little troubled by disease due to environment (e.g., very cold environments).

Cat
06-03-2005, 10:31 PM
Lister: You've changed you know Kryten. You're getting tetchy.
Kryten: Now sir, you know what happens when you call me tetchy.
Lister: Well that's what I'm calling you, tetchy, tetchy!
Kryten: It's just as well I can't hear you.
Lister draws on the whiteboard TETCHY and waves it in Kryten's face.
Kryten: That's it! Now you've done it!

*fight ensues*

(From Season 5 - Quarantine)

How cum I wasn in that scene? I'll have to have words with the script writers!

BTW the hologram seems to have turned himself off!

Cat
06-03-2005, 10:44 PM
OK I was just expecting a slightly more indepth description for the reasons why sexual reproduction is such an evolutionary winner. The main reasons I could find as an interested amatuer was the efficient removal of deliterious mutations and the Red Queen hypothesis regarding host-virus arms-race. There is a cost to having sexual reproduction and the Red Queen components argue that many asexual reproducer are either "boom-and-bust" type lifeforms (like bacteria) or little troubled by disease due to environment (e.g., very cold environments).

Well if one considers a phage or a replicating peice of DNA/RNA needs a host for it to replicate then sexual reproduction really becomes inevitable, because the more successfully that DNA can replicate the more it penetrates (there's always someone ready to screw you). Sometimes the phage may be junk, but if it bestows benefit to the host, this will enhance the chances of both host & phage.

Asexual reproduction as you say is faster, but adaption can only be effected through mutation, which of course is very slow.

As you go up the evolutionary tree, the diversity afforded by sexual reproduction offers all sorts of benefits. For example, the major histocompatability complex (MHC) confers antigenic diversity on the host which is vital for immune recognition and protection against disease.

Human sexual reproduction is no different except it seems to cost a lot more money.

Oepty
07-03-2005, 11:07 AM
Barry, David. Thankyou for your answers. I will consider them.
Scott

Spiny Norman
07-03-2005, 05:28 PM
It seems likely that a super-species would have evolved both male and female sexual organs.

Has anyone ever tried to work out the mathematical likelihod of that scenario occuring? After all, any evolutionary development must by its nature be quite unlikely, then you have to weed out the devolutions (the negative developments), and in this scenario it seems that you have to move from self-replication to two distinct sexes in a single bound.

Is there a concensus view as to where in the evolutionary development "tree" that this change took place?

Rincewind
07-03-2005, 06:07 PM
it seems that you have to move from self-replication to two distinct sexes in a single bound.

Not at all. Many plants and some animals can self-replicate but employ strategies to promote cross-fertilisation.

Kevin Bonham
07-03-2005, 08:16 PM
Didn't I already answer these questions Frosty is asking somewhere before?


and in this scenario it seems that you have to move from self-replication to two distinct sexes in a single bound.

Total nonsense - there are several species that are able to both self-replicate and reproduce sexually. For instance, aphids. There is no reason why there would need to be a jump from self-replication to obligate sexual reproduction. Also many species have the ability to develop sexes - rather than being born male or female they can become male or female or switch between the two as required. All that is needed is the possibility of transfer of material between individuals and recombination, which for a single-celled organism (with which sexual reproduction probably began) is really no big deal.


Is there a concensus view as to where in the evolutionary development "tree" that this change took place?

A very long time ago. Probably billions of years back. Of course some sexually reproducing organisms later went back to asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction itself might have evolved more than once. It is common for any useful feature to evolve repeatedly through the history of life.

Cat
07-03-2005, 10:42 PM
Has anyone ever tried to work out the mathematical likelihod of that scenario occuring? After all, any evolutionary development must by its nature be quite unlikely, then you have to weed out the devolutions (the negative developments), and in this scenario it seems that you have to move from self-replication to two distinct sexes in a single bound.

Is there a concensus view as to where in the evolutionary development "tree" that this change took place?


Barry's been reading too much string theory, where anything is probable. Evolutionary theory is much more down to earth, and as I said sexual reproduction is almost an inevitable consequence of evolution and would have been happening from the earliest stages. As for the probability it is 1, because it has happened and it's already with us.

Rincewind
07-03-2005, 10:59 PM
Barry's been reading too much string theory, where anything is probable.

Actually a theory where anything is probable is not very useful.


Evolutionary theory is much more down to earth, and as I said sexual reproduction is almost an inevitable consequence of evolution and would have been happening from the earliest stages.

Actually I would say that sexual reproduction is highly favoured because of the way DNA divide and recombine. If they didn;t do that are they did it in different ways like unary or trinary methods then I think we would find one and 3 sexes being favoured by natural selection.


As for the probability it is 1, because it has happened and it's already with us.

That as ridiculous statement. The probability of everything that has occurred is not automatically one just because it has occurred. If you believe it is by definition then you are using a very different meaning than Frosty. Because if that were the case, he wouldn't have asked the question.

For example, lets say I roll a cubic die and a 6 comes up, Frosty say "what is the chance of that?" I say "1 in 6, answering the question as Frost intended". You on the other hand make the useless statement "1 since we now know a 6 was rolled" which casts no light on anything.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2005, 05:59 PM
Total nonsense - there are several species that are able to both self-replicate and reproduce sexually.

I don't agree with you that its "total nonsense". What is the point of an organism developing the feature of "gender" if there is nobody to gender up with? For gender to work and provide an evolutionary benefit, both genders must simultaneously appear. Otherwise the single gender on its lonesome would be a redundant feature that serves no useful purpose and should therefore just as quickly disappear. Or are you saying that one gender appeared first, then some time later the complementary gender appeared and they hooked up?

I do not dispute that there are many weird and wonderful organisms around .... some self-replicating, others using gender, some using both ... but that is not relevant to my point.

Spiny Norman
08-03-2005, 06:25 PM
For example, lets say I roll a cubic die and a 6 comes up, Frosty say "what is the chance of that?" I say "1 in 6, answering the question as Frost intended".

You're right Barry ... that is indeed how I'm approaching the question(s). I think the probabilities/mathematics of this are particularly interesting and perhaps even challenging for those in favour of an evolutionary model.

As I sat and ate my dinner tonight, I was thinking about the possibilities (probabilities?) of life on other planets, or perhaps more accurately, life in other galaxies.

Since the galaxies split up very early in the "big bang" I would expect that any sentient life discovered in future would be far, far more likely to be completely and utterly different from mankind, almost certainly not based on a similar system to our DNA ... totally foreign.

What think you? Pure speculation I realise, so feel free to leave this one alone. But if the odds of life developing in our tiny backwater of the Universe are almost incomprehensibly small (yet here we are) ... the chances of it happening twice (or more) would make the mind boggle, unless life developed completely differently elsewhere.

Cat
08-03-2005, 08:25 PM
That as ridiculous statement. The probability of everything that has occurred is not automatically one just because it has occurred. If you believe it is by definition then you are using a very different meaning than Frosty. Because if that were the case, he wouldn't have asked the question.

For example, lets say I roll a cubic die and a 6 comes up, Frosty say "what is the chance of that?" I say "1 in 6, answering the question as Frost intended". You on the other hand make the useless statement "1 since we now know a 6 was rolled" which casts no light on anything.


Probability is a mathematical construct used to predict the liklihood of an event happening. When the event has happened it becomes a certainty and the concept of probability no longer applies to that event. I grant my answer was a little facetious, but trying to apply probability retrorespectively is inappropriate.

To use your analogy, a 6 was rolled, it's happened, it's a certainty. We know nothing of the number of attempts it took to get a 6, all we can say is its happened, fact pure & simple. To say anything further is pure speculation & imagination, the reality is 6 was thrown. It happened, 100%, 1.

Cat
08-03-2005, 08:32 PM
You're right Barry ... that is indeed how I'm approaching the question(s). I think the probabilities/mathematics of this are particularly interesting and perhaps even challenging for those in favour of an evolutionary model.

As I sat and ate my dinner tonight, I was thinking about the possibilities (probabilities?) of life on other planets, or perhaps more accurately, life in other galaxies.

Since the galaxies split up very early in the "big bang" I would expect that any sentient life discovered in future would be far, far more likely to be completely and utterly different from mankind, almost certainly not based on a similar system to our DNA ... totally foreign.

What think you? Pure speculation I realise, so feel free to leave this one alone. But if the odds of life developing in our tiny backwater of the Universe are almost incomprehensibly small (yet here we are) ... the chances of it happening twice (or more) would make the mind boggle, unless life developed completely differently elsewhere.

On the contrary, one has to work from observation. Our lives, our DNA, our species, our evolutionary tree exists. We have no experience of any other. We know our DNA is possible and so that makes it the best choice as the most likely basis for any other life - we have no objective evidence that any other kinds of life is possible. What happens in our lives has to be considered more likely to be typical until we obtain evidence to the contrary, because it's the only evidence for life that we possess.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2005, 09:24 PM
I don't agree with you that its "total nonsense".

It is total nonsense whether you agree or not.


What is the point of an organism developing the feature of "gender" if there is nobody to gender up with? For gender to work and provide an evolutionary benefit, both genders must simultaneously appear.

This claim is a common mistake that relies on a simplistic concept of what gender actually is. It's easy for us to think of two "genders" as being very distinct things with thousands of morphological and anatomical differences, but the origins of sexual reproduction could have been something as similar as a single-celled organism exchanging genetic material with another that differed from it in a handful of chromosomes. To think of these as "male" and "female" in the way we understand it may seem spurious, but sexual reproduction is still occurring because there is recombination of material from two distinct parents. From this, differences to the level we would normally apply the label "gender" to could have gradually developed. If the ability to exchange material is present, then as soon as there is genetic variation you immediately have two "genders" even if neither is hugely different from the original "genderless" organism. Therefore the claim that you need to wait for two genders to separately evolve from ungendered stock is false.

Two genders is not the only way for sexual reproduction to occur either. I understand that multiple gender reproduction occurs in fungi.

Kevin Bonham
08-03-2005, 09:34 PM
But if the odds of life developing in our tiny backwater of the Universe are almost incomprehensibly small (yet here we are) ... the chances of it happening twice (or more) would make the mind boggle, unless life developed completely differently elsewhere.

This is also nonsense. There is a massive industry of life-on-earth-is-incredibly-unlikely claims but such claims are riddled with statistical flaws and misunderstandings.

For refutations of the "life was incredibly unlikely to evolve" tosh I strongly recommend this FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/).

Actually I recommend that all creationists and all evolution-sceptical Christians read all the FAQs on the talkorigins.org site prior to attempting to comment publicly on any of the scientific issues involved. I don't necessarily vouch for everything on that site but a thorough read of it would save them the effort of asking 99+% of the misinformed "questions" that they ask.

Rincewind
08-03-2005, 10:27 PM
Probability is a mathematical construct used to predict the liklihood of an event happening. When the event has happened it becomes a certainty and the concept of probability no longer applies to that event. I grant my answer was a little facetious, but trying to apply probability retrorespectively is inappropriate.

I think your defintion is circular but no matter it's only a side issue. The point is applying probability retrospectively is not inappropriate at all. It is useful in all sorts of activities and is exacty what Frosty was asking.


To use your analogy, a 6 was rolled, it's happened, it's a certainty. We know nothing of the number of attempts it took to get a 6, all we can say is its happened, fact pure & simple. To say anything further is pure speculation & imagination, the reality is 6 was thrown. It happened, 100%, 1.

You say the same thing three or four times but don't make a convincing argument once. The point is that before the die is cast there is a calculable probability associated with every outcome. Without knowledge of the future the hypothetical question of probabilities is not meaningless.

For example, suppose someone playing a game of Blackjack. and are holding a 12. The dealer has a face up card of a 10. They decide correctly (all other things being equal) to hit, draw a 10 and bust.

The player turns to me and says, "did I make a mistake?" and I answer, "No, probability shows that in that situation hitting is the best strategy in the long term".

He then turns to you and says "is that right?" and you say "No, you lost because that card was a ten, it is a certainty now and to consider what it might have been is now meaningless".

My answer provides useful information about what to do when that situation occurs next. Your answer is a waste of air.

Cat
08-03-2005, 10:35 PM
My answer provides useful information about what to do when that situation occurs next.

No question your answer provides information of what to do, but that's irrelevant, because in terms of evolution, its happened, no if's or but's. We know virtually nothing about timescale, the number of times, the number of opportunities, the number of universes, it's a complete unknown. The probability that it could happen is incalculable, the reality that it has happened is a certainty. There is no place for probability.

firegoat7
09-03-2005, 12:10 AM
Dear Scotty,

One arguement that can be utilised against evolutionists is to try and weed out of them the survival of the fittest arguement.

Ultimately some of them believe (probably delusionally) that humans are the truly evolved creature. It is clear however from a bigger picture view that bacteria have survived a lot longer then humans and are certainly more adapt at evolving then humans.

However, inevitably values and meaning will then enter the debate. Who wants to be a bacteria when I can evolve into a chessplayer etc etc

Cheers Fg7

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2005, 01:09 AM
One arguement that can be utilised against evolutionists is to try and weed out of them the survival of the fittest arguement.

Ultimately some of them believe (probably delusionally) that humans are the truly evolved creature. It is clear however from a bigger picture view that bacteria have survived a lot longer then humans and are certainly more adapt at evolving then humans.

Nice to see that your understanding of evolutionary theory is not much more advanced than that of the average creationist. Of course there are plenty of village Darwinists out there whose understanding of evolutionary theory isn't much more advanced than the average creationist either, but I digress.

It is a common myth that evolutionists believe evolution proceeds by natural selection between species, so that "the fittest" species survive while the least fit species do not. In fact, this concept (often called "species selection") is controversial and is not an essential part of evolutionary theory. The survival of the fittest concept refers to the survival of the fittest individuals within a species and the way in which this impacts upon the development of a species, and changes in a species over time that may ultimately lead to new species.

Therefore, you are just criticising a straw man, but you're hardly the first student or reader of sociology to imagine that passing familiarity with the nonsense spouted by Herbert Spencer makes them an expert on evolutionary theory.

Spiny Norman
09-03-2005, 06:54 AM
For refutations of the "life was incredibly unlikely to evolve" tosh I strongly recommend this FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/)..

Thanks Kevin, I will have a read of that, sounds interesting.


Actually I recommend that all creationists and all evolution-sceptical Christians read all the FAQs on the talkorigins.org site prior to attempting to comment publicly on any of the scientific issues involved. I don't necessarily vouch for everything on that site but a thorough read of it would save them the effort of asking 99+% of the misinformed "questions" that they ask.

Happy to take on board the suggestion. Not sure I have enough free time to comply... :) I take it you've read the relevant material from the Creation Science website? (you probably have, but I'm just checking before we proceed any further). ;)

Perhaps I should try this approach next time someone asks me about my faith? "I recommend that all atheists and agnostics read all the FAQs on Pentecostal Christianity at site XXXX before asking me any misinformed questions". Somehow I don't think it'd produce the right result....

:hmm:

Hey AC .... I've got a site for you to visit .... :owned:

antichrist
09-03-2005, 08:21 AM
With 9 out 10 site recommended to me I have found very disappointing so I usually ignore now.

Kevin Bonham
09-03-2005, 05:27 PM
Happy to take on board the suggestion. Not sure I have enough free time to comply... :) I take it you've read the relevant material from the Creation Science website? (you probably have, but I'm just checking before we proceed any further). ;)

Hmph. Who needs to, we had Jonathan Sarfati on the old BBs during 2002. :P I've even skimmed his book. (Actually yes I have read a lot of debate back and forth so I have a fair idea of what creationists are babbling about.)


Perhaps I should try this approach next time someone asks me about my faith? "I recommend that all atheists and agnostics read all the FAQs on Pentecostal Christianity at site XXXX before asking me any misinformed questions". Somehow I don't think it'd produce the right result....

The two are different. Informed debate about evolution does involve a degree of technical knowledge that Christians weighing in on the topic almost invariably lack whereas in the case of religion there is no evidence that there's anything to know - the only issue is being right about the content of what the other person is claiming.

There are some atheists who would benefit from understanding the viewpoint they are attacking better. Christianity has so many holes that it is unnecessary to erect straw men around it in order to knock it over.

Cat
09-03-2005, 11:17 PM
Informed debate about evolution does involve a degree of technical knowledge that Christians weighing in on the topic almost invariably lack whereas in the case of religion there is no evidence that there's anything to know - the only issue is being right about the content of what the other person is claiming.

There are some atheists who would benefit from understanding the viewpoint they are attacking better. Christianity has so many holes that it is unnecessary to erect straw men around it in order to knock it over.


In fact, evolution has come a long way since the mollusc my matie, and there's a few things apparent to us involved in the study of the more evolved, viz. that those involved in the study of the devolved molluscum world lack the technical knowledge to appreciate and understand the mechanisms at play in the evolved world.

Religious experience is alien to and unknown in the world of the mollusc. It turns out that even relatively advanced vertebrates do not display spirituality or a semblance of religiosity. It turns out that only in the supremely evolved human species, my forte as it 'appens, that faith emerges as a biological characteristic. It seems that some degree of advanced sophistication is required in order for worship to become manifest.

Snails don't do it, bees don't do it, even educated KB's don't do it, lets do it, lets fall in love (with God).

So my molluscum matie, it seems that religious belief is a highly evolved trait, one might even ponder whether there is some sleight of hand at work, some apparent purposefulness to this random chaos we call evolution. In fact, from the data I posted earlier from the studies performed by the LSE, it might even be fair to say that faith is a characteristic of a healthy human individual and that atheism is infact a disfunctional trait, one might even call the atheist a devo.

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2005, 01:08 AM
David, firstly there's something I'd like to say and make clear once and once only. It doesn't bother me if you and firegoat choose to amuse yourself with fatuous references to snails just because I study them, but it does make me think of you as smallminded pimplebrains. I don't want you to waste a single moment thinking that what you are doing is original, funny, or that I haven't had it before from several dozen dimwits mostly under the age of fifteen. I would say "grow up" but I'm feeling polite this evening. Please grow up. :lol:


It turns out that even relatively advanced vertebrates do not display spirituality or a semblance of religiosity.

What is your evidence to support this babble?


It turns out that only in the supremely evolved human species, my forte as it 'appens, that faith emerges as a biological characteristic. It seems that some degree of advanced sophistication is required in order for worship to become manifest.

Again, what is your evidence? Just because worship has only been detected in humans, do we know no other species believes or engages in ritual? Would we even recognise it if they did? How would you know whether a killer whale is praying to the great orcagod Zet from the Marianas Trench, for instance?


In fact, from the data I posted earlier from the studies performed by the LSE, it might even be fair to say that faith is a characteristic of a healthy human individual and that atheism is infact a disfunctional trait, one might even call the atheist a devo.

That is a ludicrous conclusion to draw from evidence which says nothing about causality. You do not even consider, for instance, the hypothesis that unhappy situations in life have caused loss of faith in some people who formerly had it, which would mean that other atheists would not necessarily be less "happy". You have also not considered the extent to which religion might cause a person to misrepresent their happiness level.

I also haven't read the study but it sounds like a case of post hoc corellation - which is interesting but not too much should be drawn from it until it's been repeated with a fresh sample.

Cat
10-03-2005, 08:01 AM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]David, firstly there's something I'd like to say and make clear once and once only. It doesn't bother me if you and firegoat choose to amuse yourself with fatuous references to snails just because I study them, but it does make me think of you as smallminded pimplebrains. I don't want you to waste a single moment thinking that what you are doing is original, funny, or that I haven't had it before from several dozen dimwits mostly under the age of fifteen. I would say "grow up" but I'm feeling polite this evening. Please grow up. :lol:

Thanks Kevo, it's nice to now we can continue to amuse ourselves in our peurile way without you taking offence




What is your evidence to support this babble?

The question you should ask is 'where is the evidence that creatures other than humans engage in spiritual practice?' I'd be interested if you've ever seen a snail pray.






That is a ludicrous conclusion to draw from evidence which says nothing about causality. You do not even consider, for instance, the hypothesis that unhappy situations in life have caused loss of faith in some people who formerly had it, which would mean that other atheists would not necessarily be less "happy". You have also not considered the extent to which religion might cause a person to misrepresent their happiness level.

Not really, if one believed in some purposeful existence it's an entirely logical conclusion. That's the problem with fundamentalism, they take this logic to the extreme.


I also haven't read the study but it sounds like a case of post hoc corellation - which is interesting but not too much should be drawn from it until it's been repeated with a fresh sample.

Well maybe you should read Layard's work before you draw conclusions. There's too many people ready to criticise the work of others without really engaging in the subject!

Kevin Bonham
10-03-2005, 05:18 PM
The question you should ask is 'where is the evidence that creatures other than humans engage in spiritual practice?'

There is no need for me to ask that question because you were the one who asserted that only humans do it, a claim for which you have no backing. You also insulted me for not being aware of the so-called truth that only humans do it, when in fact it is merely a hypothesis grounded in humanocentrism. The truth is that we just don't know whether any other animals have religion or not. Hope not, suspect so.


Not really, if one believed in some purposeful existence it's an entirely logical conclusion.

Didn't address my point.


Well maybe you should read Layard's work before you draw conclusions.

Found an essay by him here (http://prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6761) for anyone interested.

If anyone can find exact details of the quantitative claims he makes about religious belief I would be interested to see it.


There's too many people ready to criticise the work of others without really engaging in the subject!

You can get a fair idea of what kind of study you're dealing with from summaries. I wasn't criticising it anyway, though after reading some of the waffle in the above piece I'm tempted. :hmm:

Rincewind
10-03-2005, 07:22 PM
The question you should ask is 'where is the evidence that creatures other than humans engage in spiritual practice?' I'd be interested if you've ever seen a snail pray.

All this makes you look quite uneducated. You should take care in refering to ANY species as more developed, advanced or evolved than another. In most cases (including this one) it is just unadulterated anthropocentism, the likes of which I have not seen since firegoat's "no humans = no universe". (Although apparently I took the wrong end of that statement.)

For your information, snails consider themselves significantly more spiritual (and a good deal more intelligent) than you not to mention more advanced evolutionarily speaking as they have their own house that they can take with them everywhere, where you must rely on a builder to construct a fixed abode and then pay a exorbitant mortgage for years on end befoer you can finally own it.

Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them.

firegoat7
10-03-2005, 09:49 PM
A Just because worship has only been detected in humans, do we know no other species believes or engages in ritual? Would we even recognise it if they did? How would you know whether a killer whale is praying to the great orcagod Zet from the Marianas Trench, for instance?

Bonham this is silly claim. While it may be true that David (and the human race) can not guarantee that animals don't worship. He is quite entitled to state with some authority that to the best of our current knowledge we don't believe they worship.

Your objections to the certainty of animal religous ritual is just as silly as this arguement. Dogs can't fly aeroplanes. How would you know if a dog couldn't fly an aeroplane? Lets just say you show me an example where a dog flew an aeroplane.

Imagine if somebody said to you, Can you guarantee that this endangered snail wasn't a common household species somewhere on the planet.

Of course you couldn't guarantee an outcome 100%, but you shouldn't be mocked for giving a reasonable answer, according to current understandings.

Cheers Fg7

antichrist
10-03-2005, 10:02 PM
I am allowed to be stupid at least once a night.

Now honestly I was taught at the Sacred Heart School that animals do worship God. Specifically, when chooks bend theiri neck down and pick up water with their beek, then put their head back up, that is to say thanks to God. So there. It was not so that the water run down throats, nooo, only someone stupid like Greenbottle would say such a thing.

firegoat7
10-03-2005, 10:07 PM
Nice to see that your understanding of evolutionary theory is not much more advanced than that of the average creationist. Of course there are plenty of village Darwinists out there whose understanding of evolutionary theory isn't much more advanced than the average creationist either, but I digress. What is wrong with you? Is it possible for you to actually not jump straight down peoples throats when you post. I am forming a belief that it is not, and are starting to think that your a pathological nutcase.



Therefore, you are just criticising a straw man, but you're hardly the first student or reader of sociology to imagine that passing familiarity with the nonsense spouted by Herbert Spencer makes them an expert on evolutionary theory.

1) I never claimed to be an expert. 2) I offered one arguement for scott against some people who believe in evolution. If you believe this arguement has no relevence to peoples understanding of evolution then of course your entitled to that opinion, but I would suggest that it is a helpful one for seperating informed evolutionist people from eugenic nutcases.

3) I created no "straw man" since I did not attack evolutionary theory- learn to read whats written down.


Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
10-03-2005, 10:15 PM
All this makes you look quite uneducated. You should take care in refering to ANY species as more developed, advanced or evolved than another. In most cases (including this one) it is just unadulterated anthropocentism, the likes of which I have not seen since firegoat's "no humans = no universe". (Although apparently I took the wrong end of that statement.)

For your information, snails consider themselves significantly more spiritual (and a good deal more intelligent) than you not to mention more advanced evolutionarily speaking as they have their own house that they can take with them everywhere, where you must rely on a builder to construct a fixed abode and then pay a exorbitant mortgage for years on end befoer you can finally own it.

Baz, I hope this is a joke post because it really is not that funny.




Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them.

I told you about this problem in our last encounter. Your excellent standards are slipping. Can anyone actually understand this sentence?

Cheer fg7

Kevin Bonham
11-03-2005, 12:42 AM
Bonham this is silly claim.

No it isn't, because all I pointed out was that he didn't know.


While it may be true that David (and the human race) can not guarantee that animals don't worship. He is quite entitled to state with some authority that to the best of our current knowledge we don't believe they worship.

Nonsense - our current knowledge is so limited that we can only reasonably say we simply do not know. In any case David asserted as fact that we do know they don't, and all I was doing was shooting that down. Even if one thought animals very probably did not worship, one would still be right in regarding David's comments as premature, unsubstantiated and silly - all the more so for his presumptiveness in declaring contrary viewpoints ignorant.


Your objections to the certainty of animal religous ritual is just as silly as this arguement. Dogs can't fly aeroplanes. How would you know if a dog couldn't fly an aeroplane? Lets just say you show me an example where a dog flew an aeroplane.

Pathetic example because we know what it would be like if a dog flew an aeroplane and we do not know of any cases of it occurring in aviation history (at least, I don't). We also know a lot about canine intellectual abilities and are entitled to assume that flying a plane is something a dog would need to be carefully trained in and would still be unlikely to pull off. "Impossible" is a big word but the odds seem pretty long. However we do not know what it would be like if an animal engaged in worship and we have no reason at all to believe that animals are incapable of it. Any attempt to assert that very high intelligence is needed is easy enough to question by pointing out that within our own species, the highly intelligent are less likely to believe. The humanocentrism of human concepts of intelligence is also a rich picking ground here.


Imagine if somebody said to you, Can you guarantee that this endangered snail wasn't a common household species somewhere on the planet.

That example actually supports my case because there are many examples where species have been listed as presumed to be endangered, only to have it discovered that the "endangered" populations were introduced from elsewhere where the species is secure. This mainly happens in botany but could happen with a range of organisms. In the case of endangerment, there is a practical reason to assume the worst in deciding to list something as threatened and it is well understood that categories of threat are provisional anyway. In the case we are discussing here, there is no such practical reason and no excuse for David's presumption, or for you defending it.


Of course you couldn't guarantee an outcome 100%, but you shouldn't be mocked for giving a reasonable answer, according to current understandings.

A reasonable answer would have been "we don't know".


What is wrong with you? Is it possible for you to actually not jump straight down peoples throats when you post. I am forming a belief that it is not, and are starting to think that your a pathological nutcase.

PKB. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

In this case I was simply criticising your lack of understanding based on the ignorance of your comments as they read.


2) I offered one arguement for scott against some people who believe in evolution. If you believe this arguement has no relevence to peoples understanding of evolution then of course your entitled to that opinion, but I would suggest that it is a helpful one for seperating informed evolutionist people from eugenic nutcases.

You did not express yourself clearly enough - you said it was "One arguement[sic] that can be utilised[sic] against evolutionists" - rather like if I said that the sexual abuse of priests by one specific degenerate sect with some views in common with Christianity was "one argument that can be used [!!] against Christians".


3) I created no "straw man" since I did not attack evolutionary theory- learn to read whats written down.

*sigh*. I am really seriously considering hotkeying an all-purpose reply to bad writing so I only need to press one key every time I flame some drongo who has blamed a "misunderstanding" of his post on something other than his own abysmal lack of clarity. Maybe since you are the main offender I should use F7?

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 07:34 AM
Baz, I hope this is a joke post because it really is not that funny.

It is a serious point expressed as a good-hearted joke.


I told you about this problem in our last encounter. Your excellent standards are slipping. Can anyone actually understand this sentence?

Your difficulty with expressing yourself in, and understanding, English has been noted. The sentence is fine. Arguably it should not have been in its own paragraph but I chose to do that for reasons of emphasis.

Grendel
11-03-2005, 10:30 AM
[QUOTE]

I'd be interested if you've ever seen a snail pray.




What about a preying mantis? :owned: :owned:

firegoat7
11-03-2005, 11:38 AM
No it isn't, because all I pointed out was that he didn't know.

I am not saying anything derogatory about you. I will simply say this I am reasonably confident that there has been no recorded scientific evidence of an animal worshiping. I support Davids evidence in this case. Your belief that "we don't know" has no real basis to be believed. I think we do know is a more reasonable response. Show me some convincing evidence and I will withdraw my claim.




You did not express yourself clearly enough - you said it was "One arguement[sic] that can be utilised[sic] against evolutionists"

Look at what I said


One arguement that can be utilised against evolutionists is to try and weed out of them the survival of the fittest arguement.

Ultimately some of them believe (probably delusionally) that humans are the truly evolved creature

Now if you want to categorise all evolutionists as having the particular viewpoint of yourself then I am sorry to say but your completely deluded.

If we accept that your not deluded (a big claim, but one even I would accept pending further enquiry), then it would appear that you have simply universalised what an evolutionist is. Now hopefully you have more common sense then that (again debatable the jury is still out in this specific case).

You after all have claimed repeatedly that you have done philosophy so ought to know better then most, that peoples belief can be based on a plethora of reasons. Furthermore their is no legitimacy in taking a stance that all evolutionists believe ...(fill in your idea of evolution)..., since this arguement is clearly refutable.

I clarified my comments quite clearly.You need to read what is written, not your own imagination of what is written.

If you had any doubts maybe you should have asked a question before launching into your usual judgemental tirade.


Cheers Fg7

firegoat7
11-03-2005, 12:12 PM
Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them.

I cannot understand this sentence RW aka Baz.
Your reply is




Your difficulty with expressing yourself in, and understanding, English has been noted. The sentence is fine. Arguably it should not have been in its own paragraph but I chose to do that for reasons of emphasis.

I am curious to know how you could justify using this expression. Your explanation dosen't seem justified since it is not obvious who or what "them" is. Also,"many more" confuses the reader, and is not an elegent wording. Lastly, I cannot help thinking the sentence is unresolved.

I am not prepared to accept that my understanding is flawed just yet, if you can teach me why it is, without doubt, I would be grateful. I would even offer an apology.

Still, what would it mean if you were wrong?

Cheers Fg7

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 04:29 PM
Is anyone else having trouble understanding what I said (or meant)?

Spiny Norman
11-03-2005, 06:40 PM
*sigh*. I am really seriously considering hotkeying an all-purpose reply to bad writing so I only need to press one key every time I flame some drongo who has blamed a "misunderstanding" of his post on something other than his own abysmal lack of clarity. Maybe since you are the main offender I should use F7?

LMAO! Careful Kevin, you're one step away from Rod Speed-ism if you're starting to think about Function Key-driven responses. ;)

For those that don't know who Rod Speed is, here's an example of the quality of response you can expect from one of the truly great bulletin board debaters of all time:

The "Rod Speed" Emulator (http://www.sensationbot.com/chat-rodspeed.html)

Rod became so accomplished at one-line, cut-n-paste put downs that people actually went and wrote a "Rod Bot" software program to emulate him.

A legend in his own lunch-time, Rod was twice voted "USENET Kook Of The Year", featured heavily in alt.usenet.kooks newsgroup, and even had a newsgroup dedicated to his antics: alt.fan.rod-speed

I had several run-ins with him when he was an OzEmail customer and I moderated their online forums. Memories, memories .... :wall:

Steer clear of this path Kevin, its a slippery-slope to disaster! ;)

Libby
11-03-2005, 07:14 PM
Is anyone else having trouble understanding what I said (or meant)?

No. I think all the snails were suitably validated ;)

ursogr8
11-03-2005, 07:25 PM
Is anyone else having trouble understanding what I said (or meant)?

hi Baz

The sentence "Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them." has something about that is a little clumsy, and I am not sure what.
When fg7 first queried it (the sentence) I re-read it a couple times to see if it had a missing word or clear mistake. It doesn't seem to have an error. But nevertheless, on re-reading it still has some idiosyncrasy.

Does it make sense? Well that is very dependent on what the reader presumes is 'them'; and frankly I am unsure of what you meant by them. I would have to go back and read context. But this would possibly defeat the question you ask of us? I will iterate to read context if you request.


starter

Libby
11-03-2005, 07:34 PM
Does it make sense? Well that is very dependent on what the reader presumes is 'them'; and frankly I am unsure of what you meant by them. I would have to go back and read context. But this would possibly defeat the question you ask of us? I will iterate to read context if you request.

starter

Now, I definitely read "them" to be the snails. Perhaps on their knees right now praying to be left out of one of these endless creationist threads that seem to populate these sorts of forums? :doh:

I think it's a style thing really. I understand Baz's intended emphasis of his point. A bit of a punchline which, taken in isolation, will not look to make much sense.

I type/write as I speak. I also know that can leave some people scratching their heads at times - or maybe it is what I write rather than how I write it that confuses them :hmm:

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 09:18 PM
The sentence "Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them." has something about that is a little clumsy, and I am not sure what.

When fg7 first queried it (the sentence) I re-read it a couple times to see if it had a missing word or clear mistake. It doesn't seem to have an error. But nevertheless, on re-reading it still has some idiosyncrasy.

I never said it was going to win a Pulitzer prize. I too am not entirely happy with it's flow. But as far as suitable to purpose, I think it meets the standards of this forum.


Does it make sense? Well that is very dependent on what the reader presumes is 'them'; and frankly I am unsure of what you meant by them. I would have to go back and read context. But this would possibly defeat the question you ask of us? I will iterate to read context if you request.

Yes, please read in context. I never meant it to stand alone and I separated it from the previous paragraph not because it was a new idea, but because I wanted to emphasis it. I probably should have used a bolded font instead. But, alas, what's done is done.

PS Thanks for the support, Libby, and rest assured. 'Them' indeed refers to the snails.

PPS I was saying that judging by the quality of David's recent posts (i.e. low) then the snails probably have good reason to consider themselves more highly evolved.

ursogr8
11-03-2005, 10:22 PM
<snip>

Yes, please read in context. I never meant it to stand alone and I separated it from the previous paragraph not because it was a new idea, but because I wanted to emphasis it. I probably should have used a bolded font instead. But, alas, what's done is done.



Ok....have now read in context and it is sensible in the sense that I understand it. It is not garbled...as I said before....but it is a bit clumsy.
I think fg7 should read again and he will make sense in context, but not as stand alone.

My final comment is that while it makes sense, it is not something I would have said, nor expected. I think it is probably quixotic........but I would have to check my dictionary to confirm this is an appropriate description.

I must stop with the forensic examination now lest KB happpens this way. ;)

ps.........I will never get used to Rincewind. Is it irrevocable?

regards
starter

arosar
11-03-2005, 10:35 PM
And what we have here ladies and gents is deconstructionism. First confuse the audience, confuse the author - and before you know it - even the critic will confuse himself.

Observe.

AR

Cat
11-03-2005, 11:13 PM
[QUOTE=Kevin Bonham]There is no need for me to ask that question because you were the one who asserted that only humans do it, a claim for which you have no backing. You also insulted me for not being aware of the so-called truth that only humans do it, when in fact it is merely a hypothesis grounded in humanocentrism. The truth is that we just don't know whether any other animals have religion or not. Hope not, suspect so.

And there was me thinking you couldn't make yourself look any more ridiculous -brilliant!



Didn't address my point.

Oh yes I did.




If anyone can find exact details of the quantitative claims he makes about religious belief I would be interested to see it.



You can get a fair idea of what kind of study you're dealing with from summaries. I wasn't criticising it anyway, though after reading some of the waffle in the above piece I'm tempted. :hmm:

Your argument is entirely redundant, because whether religious belief is a cause of or a product of happiness, the correlation still exists, not only in this but in many studies. If would be even more remarkable if religious belief were a product of happiness.

Cat
11-03-2005, 11:24 PM
All this makes you look quite uneducated. You should take care in refering to ANY species as more developed, advanced or evolved than another. In most cases (including this one) it is just unadulterated anthropocentism, the likes of which I have not seen since firegoat's "no humans = no universe". (Although apparently I took the wrong end of that statement.)

For your information, snails consider themselves significantly more spiritual (and a good deal more intelligent) than you not to mention more advanced evolutionarily speaking as they have their own house that they can take with them everywhere, where you must rely on a builder to construct a fixed abode and then pay a exorbitant mortgage for years on end befoer you can finally own it.

Frankly, many more posts of your more recent quality and I'd be inclined to believe them.

Kevo & Barry, I can see you both consider what I have written to be sacrilege. The correlation with evolutionary complexity (not anthropocentism)is real and I can see neither of you can understand this, accept it, nor can you explain why it is so. You'd both rather make yourselves look like complete pri.cks than face up to reality.

What's more, while you're both being so sanctimonious I'm not going to give you the explanation, I'm going to make you suffer. You'll just have to accept that neither of you have a better explanation than to believe it is the destiny of evolution, the will of God.

Rincewind
11-03-2005, 11:44 PM
Kevo & Barry, I can see you both consider what I have written to be sacrilege. The correlation with evolutionary complexity (not anthropocentism)is real and I can see neither of you can understand this, accept it, nor can you explain why it is so. You'd both rather make yourselves look like complete pri.cks than face up to reality.

You don't seem to be able to explain why you consider yourself more complex than a snail? What do I tell my affronted snail friends? Have you resigned?


What's more, while you're both being so sanctimonious I'm not going to give you the explanation, I'm going to make you suffer. You'll just have to accept that neither of you have a better explanation than to believe it is the destiny of evolution, the will of God.

Make me suffer. In fact stop post here entirely and really put me over the coals. :)

Cat
12-03-2005, 12:03 AM
You don't seem to be able to explain why you consider yourself more complex than a snail? What do I tell my affronted snail friends? Have you resigned?



Make me suffer. In fact stop post here entirely and really put me over the coals. :)


You'll have to say please!

Kevin Bonham
15-03-2005, 01:36 AM
I will simply say this I am reasonably confident that there has been no recorded scientific evidence of an animal worshiping. I support Davids evidence in this case. Your belief that "we don't know" has no real basis to be believed. I think we do know is a more reasonable response. Show me some convincing evidence and I will withdraw my claim.

Total drivel - "we don't know" and "there has been no recorded evidence" are exactly the same thing unless you have evidence that the event in question really never or at least very rarely occurs. We don't even know what worship by other animals would look like so to use the lack of evidence of (something you wouldn't recognise if you tripped over it) as an argument is pointless.


Now if you want to categorise all evolutionists as having the particular viewpoint of yourself then I am sorry to say but your completely deluded.

Your straw man, you knock it over.

(ignored babble)


You after all have claimed repeatedly that you have done philosophy so ought to know better then most, that peoples belief can be based on a plethora of reasons.

That is true but treating trite forms of evolutionism as being anything like the main game is a bit like assessing an opening by looking at blunders made by club players in it - or, in the context of your comment to Scott, a lot like recommending that someone respond to an opening by expecting the opponent to play weak and unsound lines.


I clarified my comments quite clearly.You need to read what is written, not your own imagination of what is written.

Already disposed of.


If you had any doubts maybe you should have asked a question before launching into your usual judgemental tirade.

Firstly it is your responsibility to write more clearly.

Secondly your reputation for failure to answer questions about the meaning of your words was set early on when it took enormous badgering to get you to answer even one of my four questions about the meaning of your clowns drivel.

If you care to find and answer the other three I will re-evaluate my opinion about asking you to explain yourself being a total waste of time.

Capablanca-Fan
06-04-2007, 10:44 AM
For refutations of the "life was incredibly unlikely to evolve" tosh I strongly recommend this FAQ (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/).

"Tosh". Oh, very English Public School, Kevin. But the Talk.Obnoxious site is not very well informed in the chemical problems of chemical evolution, which many evolutionists admit, e.g. Cairns-Smith’s devastating criticisms of RNA-first and general Miller–Urey scenarios (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/).

One of the Talk.Obnoxious articles was written by a Musgrave, who should stick to neurology because his chemistry is abysmal, and his article is deceitful. For example, his diagram is a complete distortion of what creationists believe. We understand perfectly that chemical evolution is proposed as per the ‘real theory’, precisely because we address the proposed stages in detail. Indeed, long ago, Ph.D. biochemist Duane Gish wrote a three part critique of chemical evolution (linked here (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3028/#gish)), dealing with simple chemicals, theories of polymerization, and the development of complexity and protobiont models.

Musgrave is also besotted with the Ghadiri peptide that I showed in detail was irrelevant for chemical evolution (see Self-replicating Peptides? (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532#peptides)).


Actually I recommend that all creationists and all evolution-sceptical Christians read all the FAQs on the talkorigins.org site prior to attempting to comment publicly on any of the scientific issues involved. I don't necessarily vouch for everything on that site but a thorough read of it would save them the effort of asking 99+% of the misinformed "questions" that they ask.

And some of your evolutionary cronies should read CMI material before posing their facile arguments/questions that have long ago been answered.

Kevin Bonham
09-04-2007, 04:06 AM
"Tosh". Oh, very English Public School, Kevin. But the Talk.Obnoxious site is not very well informed in the chemical problems of chemical evolution, which many evolutionists admit, e.g. Cairns-Smith’s devastating criticisms of RNA-first and general Miller–Urey scenarios (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4148/).

Here you are again trying to prove "many" from the opinions of a single example. Of course, suggesting the site is not well-informed about Cairns-Smith's views doesn't scrub up too well when he is on their recommended reading list re abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html#ABIOGENESIS) :P


For example, his diagram is a complete distortion of what creationists believe. We understand perfectly that chemical evolution is proposed as per the ‘real theory’, precisely because we address the proposed stages in detail.

Are you saying that anyone to whom his diagram's stereotype does apply (and I have encountered quite a few of them) is not a creationist?


Musgrave is also besotted with the Ghadiri peptide that I showed in detail was irrelevant for chemical evolution (see Self-replicating Peptides? (http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1532#peptides)).

I see no proof of anything in that link, merely your theoretical views on the matter.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 12:02 PM
Here you are again trying to prove "many" from the opinions of a single example. Of course, suggesting the site is not well-informed about Cairns-Smith's views doesn't scrub up too well when he is on their recommended reading list re abiogenesis (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/reading-list.html#ABIOGENESIS) :P

Doesn't mean they have digested it, much less attempted to refute it. Dawko certainly didn't seem to, since he merely cited Cairns-Smith's clay origins views with approval, without mentioning that he was driven to this desperation because of the total inadequacy of Miller–Urey theories.



Are you saying that anyone to whom his diagram's stereotype does apply (and I have encountered quite a few of them) is not a creationist?

What matters is what informed creationists have taught, not what your Aunt Sally did. There are plenty of evolutionists in cyberspace who have silly views, but evolution doesn't stand or fall on this.


I see no proof of anything in that link, merely your theoretical views on the matter.

That's your problem. Neither you nor Musgrave are qualified in chemistry, a common problem among evolutionary propagandists.

Aaron Guthrie
20-04-2007, 12:21 PM
I can't tell if you guys are discussing abiogenesis or evolution.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 12:24 PM
I can't tell if you guys are discussing abiogenesis or evolution.

Abiogenesis is often called chemical evolution.

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 12:26 PM
That is true but treating trite forms of evolutionism as being anything like the main game is a bit like assessing an opening by looking at blunders made by club players in it - or, in the context of your comment to Scott, a lot like recommending that someone respond to an opening by expecting the opponent to play weak and unsound lines.

What a hypocrite, given your fondness for bragging about the silliest creationist or ID comment you can find on the web! :P

four four two
20-04-2007, 12:43 PM
That's your problem. Neither you nor Musgrave are qualified in chemistry, a common problem among evolutionary propagandists.

Most creationist propagandists are not qualified in palaeontology,biology,or chemistry.

They are equally unqualified in classical greek,aramaic,and hebrew...which you would think they would know since it relates to the times of Jesus's life.

They are however very well versed in dressing theological thought up as science.:P

Capablanca-Fan
20-04-2007, 02:02 PM
Most creationist propagandists are not qualified in palaeontology,biology,or chemistry.

CMI has Ph.D. biologists and a Ph.D. chemist, and contacts who are Ph.D. geologists and paleontologists.


They are equally unqualified in classical greek,aramaic,and hebrew...which you would think they would know since it relates to the times of Jesus's life.

Better to be qualified in Koine Greek, the language of the New Testament. And as I've shown, the Hebrew genre of Genesis shows it was intended as historical narrative, not poetry or allegory.


They are however very well versed in dressing theological thought up as science.:P

Creation and evolution are really claims about history. But there is plenty of real science on the CMI site — a lot more than on the usual Skeptic sites :P

Kevin Bonham
22-04-2007, 01:30 AM
What a hypocrite, given your fondness for bragging about the silliest creationist or ID comment you can find on the web!

Or in a biology staffroom perhaps?

What specific examples of me thus bragging can you produce to back this accusation? Furthermore (if there are any) can you prove that I have used them to attempt to specifically disprove creationism, rather than just a "look at this lame creationist for a laugh" type exercise?

If you mean the bumblebee case, let me remind you that I only mentioned it first as an example of a so-called scientific absurdity that had ceased to be absurd. You chose to claim that no ID proponent had used it as evidence, which I then considered worth investigating.


Doesn't mean they have digested it, much less attempted to refute it. Dawko certainly didn't seem to, since he merely cited Cairns-Smith's clay origins views with approval, without mentioning that he was driven to this desperation because of the total inadequacy of Miller–Urey theories.

What specifically did Dawkins say? You seem to read him far more avidly than I do, what was the quote?


What matters is what informed creationists have taught, not what your Aunt Sally did. There are plenty of evolutionists in cyberspace who have silly views, but evolution doesn't stand or fall on this.

I am pleased to advise that I have no creationist aunts, and furthermore that I have no aunts called Sally. (I did have a grandmother who called herself Sally and who, from the age of about seventy on, was a pentecostal on alternate Wednesdays and a progressive Anglican most of the rest of the time, does that count? :lol: The attempts of the various preachers to outdo each other at her funeral were most entertaining.)


That's your problem. Neither you nor Musgrave are qualified in chemistry, a common problem among evolutionary propagandists.

So? You're not a biogeographer, not a historian, not a philosopher (and so on) yet you keep trying to sound like you have some clue about relevant aspects in those fields. Now you're using a blatant argument from authority to cover for having claimed to present proof when no-one needs to be a specialist in your field to see that you haven't. Not the wisest of moves as it happens. I doubt you'll see the other one showing up on a chess BB any time soon, but I am not the only Dr Bonham in the family. :lol: :lol: :lol: