Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#85 Jan 10, 2013
[continued]

DNA's bidirectional code

Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.

Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.

"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).

Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!

From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system

Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.

Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins ... the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).

Discarding the "junk DNA" myth

To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.

As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth ...

"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" ( The Myth of Junk DNA , 2011, p. 107).

http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bi...
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#86 Jan 11, 2013
BS.
Pahu wrote:
[continued]
DNA's bidirectional code
Scientists also have found the genome to be bidirectional—relaying different messages when read from opposite directions—providing efficiency of space.
Dr. Meyer explains: "In the same way that words are ordered into sentences and sentences into paragraphs, nucleotide bases [within the DNA molecular chain] are ordered into genes and genes are ordered into specifically arranged gene clusters.
"Or think of these individual genes as computer data files and groupings of genes as folders containing several files. The groupings of DNA 'files' that we observe serve several roles. These groupings allow the cell to make longer transcripts that are combinations of different gene messages. In other words, the coding modules of the gene files in a 'folder' can be combined in numerous ways—and in both directions—to greatly increase the number of encoded transcripts and protein products from the same genomic region or resources" (pp. 467-468).
Again, imagine how difficult it would be to design something like this! If you read forward, you find one message. If you read backwards, you find another message. Again, how could evolution possibly account for this? It is further clear evidence of a brilliant Mind at work!
From "junk DNA" to a complex computer operating system
Computer users are familiar with a computer's operating system, such as Microsoft Windows, which sets and controls the environment in which software programs run. Scientists are now startled to discover that many regions of the genome, previously thought to be useless, in fact provide key functions similar to a computer's operating system.
Dr. Meyer explains: "Portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as 'junk DNA' are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins ... the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed" (p. 367).
Discarding the "junk DNA" myth
To believe that all this incredible, efficient complexity simply evolved through mutation and natural selection is to deny the overwhelming facts.
As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells concludes: "Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth ...
"As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper. Not anymore. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times" ( The Myth of Junk DNA , 2011, p. 107).
http://www.ucg.org/science/god-science-and-bi...

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#87 Jan 15, 2013
Fully-Developed Organs 1

All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).

a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).

This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:

“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#88 Jan 15, 2013
BS
Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 1
All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).
a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).
This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:
“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#89 Jan 15, 2013
Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 1
All species appear fully developed, not partially developed. They show design (a).
a. William Paley, Natural Theology (England: 1802; reprint, Houston: St. Thomas Press, 1972).
This work by Paley, which contains many powerful arguments for a Creator, is a classic in scientific literature. Some might feel that because it was written in 1802, it is out of date. Not so. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe compared Darwin’s ideas with those of Paley as follows:
“The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.” Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), pp. 96–97.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Pathetic troll spreading ignorant anti-science propoganda.

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#90 Jan 16, 2013
Fully-Developed Organs 2

There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).

b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.

“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.

And yet, Darwin admitted that:

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.

Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.

[continue]

Since: Dec 08

Madison, AL

#91 Jan 16, 2013
[continued]

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 179.

“It’s one of the oldest riddles in evolutionary biology: How does natural selection gradually create an eye, or any complex organ for that matter? The puzzle troubled Charles Darwin, who nevertheless gamely nailed together a ladder of how it might have happened—from photoreceptor cells to highly refined orbits—by drawing examples from living organisms such as mollusks and arthropods. But holes in this progression have persistently bothered evolutionary biologists and left openings that creationists have been only too happy to exploit.” Virginia Morell,“Placentas May Nourish Complexity Studies,” Science, Vol. 298, 1 November 2002, p. 945.

David Reznick, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California (Riverside), explained to Virginia Morell:

“Darwin had to use organisms from different classes, because there isn’t a living group of related organisms that have all the steps for making an eye.” Ibid.

To solve this dilemma, Reznick points to different species of a guppylike fish, some of which have no placenta and others that have “tissues that might become placentas.” However, when pressed,“Reznick admits that the [guppylike fish’s] placenta might not be as sophisticated as the mammalian placenta”[or the eye of any organism]. Ibid.

“The eye, as one of the most complex organs, has been the symbol and archetype of his [Darwin’s] dilemma. Since the eye is obviously of no use at all except in its final, complete form, how could natural selection have functioned in those initial stages of its evolution when the variations had no possible survival value? No single variation, indeed no single part, being of any use without every other, and natural selection presuming no knowledge of the ultimate end or purpose of the organ, the criterion of utility, or survival, would seem to be irrelevant. And there are other equally provoking examples of organs and processes which seem to defy natural selection. Biochemistry provides the case of chemical synthesis built up in several stages, of which the intermediate substance formed at any one stage is of no value at all, and only the end product, the final elaborate and delicate machinery, is useful—and not only useful but vital to life. How can selection, knowing nothing of the end or final purpose of this process, function when the only test is precisely that end or final purpose?” Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1959), pp. 320–321.

c.“Of what possible use are the imperfect incipient stages of useful structures? What good is half a jaw or half a wing?” Stephen Jay Gould,“The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” p. 23.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#92 Jan 16, 2013
BS.
Pahu wrote:
Fully-Developed Organs 2
There are no examples of half-developed feathers, eyes (b), skin, tubes (arteries, veins, intestines, etc.), or any of the vital organs (dozens in humans alone). Tubes that are not 100% complete are a liability; so are partially developed organs and some body parts. For example, if a leg of a reptile were to evolve into a wing of a bird, it would become a bad leg long before it became a good wing (c).
b. Asa Gray, a famous Harvard botany professor, who was to become a leading theistic evolutionist, wrote to Darwin expressing doubt that natural processes could explain the formation of complex organs such as the eye. Darwin expressed a similar concern in his return letter of February 1860.
“The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations [Darwin believed possible if millions of years of evolution were available], my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1899), pp. 66–67.
And yet, Darwin admitted that:
“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, p. 175.
Darwin then proceeded to speculate on how the eye might nevertheless have evolved. However, no evidence was given. Later, he explained how his theory could be falsified.
[continue]
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#93 Jan 16, 2013
This creep Pahu has been trashing the message boards at BeliefNet.com for years with this spam nonsense.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#94 Jan 16, 2013
Except they are moderated and the spam crap doesn't stay up that long.
Thinking

Leighton Buzzard, UK

#95 Jan 16, 2013
Good info.

If that avatar is a picture of him, then he looks like a right shifty fucktard.
Gillette wrote:
This creep Pahu has been trashing the message boards at BeliefNet.com for years with this spam nonsense.

Since: Dec 08

Clearwater, FL

#96 Feb 6, 2013
Distinct Types

If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbill platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill similar to that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”

Figure 5: Duckbill Platypus. The duckbill platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.

There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.b

a . And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.

u “Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark,“Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539.

u “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.

u “The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.”[emphasis in original] Denton, p. 132.

b .“... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Gillingham, UK

#97 Feb 6, 2013
Bollocks.
Pahu wrote:
Distinct Types
If evolution happened, one would expect to see gradual transitions among many living things. For example, variations of dogs might blend in with variations of cats. In fact, some animals, such as the duckbill platypus, have organs totally unrelated to their alleged evolutionary ancestors. The platypus has fur, is warm-blooded, and suckles its young as do mammals. It lays leathery eggs, has a single ventral opening (for elimination, mating, and birth), and has claws and a shoulder girdle as most reptiles do. The platypus can detect electrical currents (AC and DC) as some fish can, and has a bill similar to that of a duck—a bird. It has webbed forefeet like those of an otter and a flat tail like that of a beaver. The male platypus can inject poisonous venom like a pit viper. Such “patchwork” animals and plants, called mosaics, have no logical place on the so-called “evolutionary tree.”
Figure 5: Duckbill Platypus. The duckbill platypus is found only in Tasmania and eastern Australia. European scientists who first studied platypus specimens thought that a clever taxidermist had stitched together parts of different animals—a logical conclusion if one believed that each animal must be very similar to other animals. In fact, the platypus is perfectly designed for its environment.
There is no direct evidence that any major group of animals or plants arose from any other major group.a Species are observed only going out of existence (extinctions), never coming into existence.b
a . And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field.” Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85–1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16. Kenyon has repudiated his earlier book advocating evolution.
u “Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation.” Austin H. Clark,“Animal Evolution,” Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, December 1928, p. 539.
u “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution].” Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 1, p. 210.
u “The fact that all the individual species must be stationed at the extreme periphery of such logic [evolutionary] trees merely emphasized the fact that the order of nature betrays no hint of natural evolutionary sequential arrangements, revealing species to be related as sisters or cousins but never as ancestors and descendants as is required by evolution.”[emphasis in original] Denton, p. 132.
b .“... no human has ever seen a new species form in nature.” Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981), p. 73.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
bohart

Newport, TN

#98 Feb 6, 2013
Pahu wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.
[continue]
Self evident to say the least.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#99 Feb 11, 2013
Altruism 1

Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing)“individuals .” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?

a.“... the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example:

“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.” Cleo Sullivan,“The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:

“... it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do not appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock,“Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#100 Feb 11, 2013
Dawkins explains the Evolution of altruism in this 1980s BBC Horizon documentary. Do let me know if there any bits you need help with.

www.youtube.com/watch...
Pahu wrote:
Altruism 1
Humans and many animals will endanger or even sacrifice their lives to save another—sometimes the life of another species (a). Natural selection, which evolutionists say selects individual characteristics, should rapidly eliminate altruistic (self-sacrificing)“individuals .” How could such risky, costly behavior ever be inherited? Its possession tends to prevent the altruistic “individual” from passing on its genes for altruism (b)?
a.“... the existence of altruism between different species—which is not uncommon—remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.
Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, dolphins sometimes protect humans from deadly sharks. Many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.
b. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share in raising the children of one wife. More well known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.
Adoption is another example:
“From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.” Cleo Sullivan,“The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.
Adoption is known even among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets—a form of adoption—especially individuals who have pets in lieu of having children.
Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others:
“... it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do not appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock,“Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.
Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#101 Feb 12, 2013
Altruism 2

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).

c.“Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Karl Sigmund et al.,“The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution:“Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it.[See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al.,“Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson,“The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#102 Feb 12, 2013
Dawkins explains the Evolution of altruism in this 1980s BBC Horizon documentary. Do let me know if there are any bits you need help with.

www.youtube.com/watch...
Pahu wrote:
Altruism 2
If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts evolution (d).
c.“Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Karl Sigmund et al.,“The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.
d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution:“Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This hypothesis has five problems—the last two are fatal.
Observations do not support it.[See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]
“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al.,“Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.
If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.
From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first generation.
The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.
Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation for altruism, now recognizes its failings:
“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago, which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson,“The Discover Interview,” Discover, June 2006, p. 61.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

#103 Feb 13, 2013
Extraterrestrial Life?

No verified form of life which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differed in some respects from life on earth.a [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?” on page 471.]

Figure 6: Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander, shown above, sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.

If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars.[A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 297. For a full understanding, see pages 285–345.]

a . The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed.[See Richard A. Kerr,“Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
Thinking

Yeovil, UK

#104 Feb 13, 2013
Walt Brown is a creationist fucktard.
Pahu wrote:
Extraterrestrial Life?
No verified form of life which originated outside of earth has ever been observed. If life evolved on earth, one would expect that the elaborate experiments sent to the Moon and Mars might have detected at least simple forms of life (such as microbes) that differed in some respects from life on earth.a [See “Is There Life in Outer Space?” on page 471.]
Figure 6: Mars Lander. Many people, including Carl Sagan, predicted the Viking landers would find life on Mars. They reasoned that because life evolved on Earth, some form of life must have evolved on Mars. That prediction proved to be false. The arms of the Viking 1 Lander, shown above, sampled Martian soil. Sophisticated tests on those samples did not find even a trace of life.
If traces of life are found on Mars, they may have come from comets and asteroids launched from Earth during the flood—as did salt and water found on Mars.[A prediction, later supported by a NASA discovery, is on page 297. For a full understanding, see pages 285–345.]
a . The widely publicized claims, made by NASA in 1996, to have found fossilized life in a meteorite from Mars are now largely dismissed.[See Richard A. Kerr,“Requiem for Life on Mars? Support for Microbes Fades,” Science, Vol. 282, 20 November 1998, pp. 1398–1400.]
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min KiMare 232,888
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 1 hr havent forgotten 146
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr Eagle 12 2,412
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 4 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 4 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 4 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 21 hr _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web