Evolution vs. Creation

[DanFromSmithvill e]

AustinHook wrote:

<quoted text>
He is a different guy from the real Einstein only for those who can't see through a typo or two....:-)

When they have nowhere to go, they jump on to the typing police bandwagon.

[AustinHook]

Ms Moo wrote:

Religion is belief. One either believes or not.

Not so. There is a lot of half believing that goes on.

Ms Moo wrote:

As such, the subject of the belief is not subject to veracity (independent proof).

Not so. That's the whole point of doing experiments, which often are just to either confirm or to disprove beliefs. Happens all the time. Also, one can do psychological experiments to pretty reliably determine if someone believes in something or not, even when one tries to falsify one's own beliefs. Not 100% reliable, but usually good enough.

Ms Moo wrote:

Rather, what can be questioned is whether the individual actually believes or not. E.g., a belief in God. God can't be proven except by relying on more beliefs. What can be proven is whether the individual actually believes in God.

Not so, anything can be questioned.

Ms Moo wrote:

Science is the direct opposite. It's about facts. Facts are, by definition, subject to veracity. Beliefs of facts is nonsense; the facts exists whether you believe in them or not.

Operationally speaking, beliefs of facts is incredibly useful. Disbelief of them usually leads to disaster.

Ms Moo wrote:

E.g., fire is hot. It can be proven that fire is hot. Try it. Ergo, a belief in God is akin to a belief in unicorns.

Might be true. I suspect it is, but it still doesn't necessarily follow from any of the above.

[MazHere]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>
That's why it's an intermediary between dinos and birds.
For a dino to evolve into a bird it has to loose some features and gain others. In between we will find animals with a mix of both and that's what the article is describing.

Arch has not gained any bird traits nor loose any dino traits, that appears to be what you refuse to suck up.

Arch has a wishbone just like a theropod, feathers like a theropod, three digits like a theropod, has a moveable thighbone like a dinosaur and a beak like a dino and a plethora of other species.

Arch does not have a reversed hallux like a bird, hollow bones like a bird, a moveable thighbone like a bird, a wishbone like a modern bird, nor a beak like a modern bird.

So I will ask again seeing as you evos have bombed out with every try,eg hollow bones what traits are intermedicate or a mix that suggests arch is anything more than a variety of dinosaur?
Evos are you still wiping egg off their faces around their hollow boned dinosaurs?

[MazHere]

Igor Trip wrote:

<quoted text>
“decelerating fitness gains” means the rate at which fitness increases slows down not that it becomes negative. The beneficial mutations are still improving the bacterias adaption to its environment.
And beneficial mutations are evolution!
The full abstract.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
“Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway.”
So beneficial mutations can and do happen.
“The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds.”
When the bacteria were moved onto a more fit background the mutations were less needed and so selection slowed down (It didn't stop).
“These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway.”
Three of the mutations reduced defects so increasing fitness of the bacteria.
“A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.”
All was as predicted by evolutionary models.

So how does the genome know what is or is not a beneficial mutation?

"When the bacteria were moved onto a more fit background the mutations were less needed and so selection slowed down (It didn't stop).
“These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway.”
Three of the mutations reduced defects so increasing fitness of the bacteria."

I did not say the research said that adaptation would stop. I said that the cost is more than the benefits.

So a REDUCTION in defects is now what has happend for billions of years. A reduction is not sufficient because over 4 billion years the ever accumulating effects of deleterious mutations and compounded epigentic effects should have grinded the process of adaptation to at least a halt.

The process would have to clean out all 'the badies', not just reduce them, for the 4 billion year thing to work?

The other thing again is that evos could not accept their own initial data. They had to mess around with more biased algorithmic magic, another landscape, to make it fit in with TOE.

I still maintain the data supports a creationist paradigm and rhetoric supports TOE.

[AustinHook]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you thik abiogenesis should be classified as PHYSICS?
I do.

Sounds more like chemistry to me, but close enough. Why classify?

[thewordofme]

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Hah! a typical defense reponse from the sidekick of the Stygian witch, the slut of Beelzebub.As you sit stewing in the bubbling pool of Satans semen carefully lift the Devils nutsack out of your eyes and commence your fornicaton with the evolutionist whore of Babylon that your offspring may populate the bowels of Satan to prepare for the apocalypse.
Hail the Goo!

Yep, typical creotard...much much more evil than any atheist ever thought of being.

[anonymous]

Jeez! Have all the potty-mouth trolls run out of places to bump #icks on the other forum threads? Less vitriol, more content, folks!

[DanFromSmithvill e]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Arch has not gained any bird traits nor loose any dino traits, that appears to be what you refuse to suck up.
Arch has a wishbone just like a theropod, feathers like a theropod, three digits like a theropod, has a moveable thighbone like a dinosaur and a beak like a dino and a plethora of other species.
Arch does not have a reversed hallux like a bird, hollow bones like a bird, a moveable thighbone like a bird, a wishbone like a modern bird, nor a beak like a modern bird.
So I will ask again seeing as you evos have bombed out with every try,eg hollow bones what traits are intermedicate or a mix that suggests arch is anything more than a variety of dinosaur?
Evos are you still wiping egg off their faces around their hollow boned dinosaurs?

Ladies and gentleman, Maz Here the Mad Hare once again declaring victory in the face of utter defeat. Give her a big round of applause.

[KittenKoder]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
That would be because despite all the rhetoric and similarity many non closely related species share, only mankind, a furless, obligate bipedal primate, can make meaning of the world and conceive the concept of a God and afterlife. Despite sign language a fur laiden ape will never conceive of a God, no matter how many generations of signing you evoke.
The mind of God is where we refect the likeness of God, not in the limbs tetrapods and whales are supposed to share which is ridiculous, nor the neural spindles primates share with whales and nothing in between.

Yet, you demonstrate a clear inability to utilize these concepts you claim make us stand out. Sadly, you are so wrong on your assertion it's almost humorous. Delusion is also as common in other animals as well, so is drug addiction. Other animals also demonstrate very basic scientific understanding in many cases, no theory or gravity equations but understanding none-the-less.

We are also not the only bipeds, also we do have fur, it's just not thick fur in all areas. Have you ever seen a chimp's hand? It's hairless on the palms like ours, and the patches of hair on the back of the hands match ours as well. You feel so small, probably because you really don't know anything, that you have to make up this magical and all-powerful thing to be "a mirror" of in order to feel significant. I feel sorry for people with self esteems as low as yours, clinging to fairy tales in order to quell that small voice in your head telling you that you are useless, worthless, that you cannot do anything at all, so you make up an imaginary friend to fight that small voice. The problem is that you cannot admit that this friend is imaginary, that is why it's a delusion.

[KittenKoder]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you thik abiogenesis should be classified as PHYSICS?
I do.

Depends on which abiogenesis hypothesis holds water, or which one you are talking about. The primary one that's strong and showing demonstrable results is chemistry, which is fitting since chemistry is pretty much a precursor to all biological functions.

Now if you're talking about the abiogenesis assertion of the bible, that dirt was magically poofed into life, that's just fairy tales.

Such matters you should be a little more precise on.

[KittenKoder]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
So how does the genome know what is or is not a beneficial mutation?
...

You just won the golden qqoq award!

[DanFromSmithvill e]

MazHere wrote:

<quoted text>
Arch has not gained any bird traits nor loose any dino traits, that appears to be what you refuse to suck up.
Arch has a wishbone just like a theropod, feathers like a theropod, three digits like a theropod, has a moveable thighbone like a dinosaur and a beak like a dino and a plethora of other species.
Arch does not have a reversed hallux like a bird, hollow bones like a bird, a moveable thighbone like a bird, a wishbone like a modern bird, nor a beak like a modern bird.
So I will ask again seeing as you evos have bombed out with every try,eg hollow bones what traits are intermedicate or a mix that suggests arch is anything more than a variety of dinosaur?
Evos are you still wiping egg off their faces around their hollow boned dinosaurs?

Here is what I don't get. Maz doesn't understand what Archaeopteryx is, but somehow recent findings by scientists regarding Archaeopteryx place in the lineage between dinosaurs somehow shatters the theory of evolution? Not even remotely correct. All this is is an argument in science over the placement of Archaeopteryx. Whether it will retain its position as an intermediate species sharing traits between dinosaurs and birds (including a wishbone) or as a member of a related clade will be a matter of further research, debate and further evidence.

Which ever evidence best supports the future classification of this animal, it still clearly possesses features transitional between dinosaurs and modern birds.

Only someone completely outside their intellectual element would consider this to be evidence to break down the theory of evolution.

[Subduction Zone]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
I would never be so ignorant (as you have just shown to be, because you have NO IDEA, WHAT I believe in) to imply ANY such thing for I did not personally KNOW the man, and therefore, can only base MY OPINION on what I've READ of the mans writings.
SOME of interviews WITH Eistien however, can be read BELOW--
----------
The following comes from "What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,"The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17. The questions are posed by Viereck; the reply to each is by Einstein.
On Jesus-
"To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
"As a child, I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."
"Have you read Emil Ludwig's book on Jesus?
"Emil Ludwig's Jesus," replied Einstein, "is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot."
"You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
"Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus."
"Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets."
"No man," Einstein replied, "can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he."

None of these quotes debunk what I said about Einstein's views.

Didn't you do at least a little investigation before you showed that you were the ignorant one?

I tell you what, I am feeling generous. Look up what Einstein seriously thought about Christianity and Judaism. Here is a hint, more than once he called them childish beliefs.

Admit you were wrong, and I will forget this incident.

[Subduction Zone]

TheIndependentMajority wrote:

<quoted text>
They're not though, or they would be called Grimms Gospels.
Stop trying to distort the archivial reference subjectors.

Hey genius, he was not talking about the Gospels, they are only 2,000 years old. But you do have a good point. There are some obvious fairy tales in the gospels too.

[KittenKoder]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey genius, he was not talking about the Gospels, they are only 2,000 years old. But you do have a good point. There are some obvious fairy tales in the gospels too.

No, they're all obviously fairy tales.

[Subduction Zone]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
No, they're all obviously fairy tales.

Shh, we have to break it to them gently.

There probably was a person named Jesus and he may even have been killed by the Romans for his activities. No miracles of course, people don't need miracles. Look at some of the preachers out there today.

[Bat Foy]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>Yep, typical creotard...much much more evil than any atheist ever thought of being.

Hitler was an atheist. He was also a self loathing half Jew

[Subduction Zone]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hitler was an atheist. He was also a self loathing half Jew

No. First off the idea of being "half Jew" is false. Second he believed in his own version of Christianity. If you asked him what religion he was he would have said Christian or Catholic.

[thewordofme]

Bat Foy wrote:

<quoted text>
Hitler was an atheist. He was also a self loathing half Jew

Hitler was a confessed Christian and he caused books about evolution and anti-religion to be banned and burned...look it up.

Hitler was a megalomaniac of the first order. He was also a speed (amphetamines) addict and certifiably crazy.

http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/...

Go to the above website for proof of what kind of books were black-listed by the regime.

[Makesure100]

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Hitler was a confessed Christian and he caused books about evolution and anti-religion to be banned and burned...look it up.
Hitler was a megalomaniac of the first order. He was also a speed (amphetamines) addict and certifiably crazy.
http://speccoll.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/...
Go to the above website for proof of what kind of books were black-listed by the regime.

Hit-ler was Catholic.