The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

What is silly about pointing out the fact that (God-less) Communism has always held Evolution to be the (God-less) explantion for the development of life on Earth ... and Robin reworking old jokes about Communists ... is therefore 'throwing stones in a glasshouse' ... for both Communists ... and Evolutionsts, like himself.:)

it's silly mudslinging, i.e. evolutionists are commies :rolleyes:

It doesn't do anything to state why evolution is wrong, you're just planting the suggestion that evolutionists are evil. You're dropping the level of the discussion to the standard of "you're just stinky".

Respect is earned by the level and content of your posts. You're doing nothing to earn any respect with what you posted.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

I know Ken Ham personally - and I can vouch for his credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.

LOL. Exactly what value do you think your vouching for him has here? To be perfectly honest, you vouching for someone, in this manner, would, at least in my case, be a very strong indicator that the person lacked credibility, knowledge, decency and honesty.

Are you somehow under the mistaken belief, ney delusion, that you have a grain of credibility here and that you can vouch for other people? Is there no end to your delusion...?

MrP

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

... and therfore has never been observed ...

Better close all the churches down until they have proof of observing god, then.

robindch

J C wrote: »

...and this 'asessment' wasn't biased by your very strong anti-God, anti-Bible and anti-Creationist beliefs?

Nope. It was based entirely upon my noticing that doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham has a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty.

J C wrote: »

... or the fact that you have never uttered a good word about Creationism or Creationists ... and I mean any Creationist?

As above -- you may not have had time to read what I wrote - I don't have any great interest one way or the other in the vast majority of creationists who are uninformed, stupid or gullible (in fact, I feel rather sorry for them). The only group whom I hold in contempt are the unscrupulous men and women, like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham, who willingly feed the uninformed, the stupid and the gullible what they want to hear, for no other reason than it pays well, or it makes them feel good.

As soon as this last group does something worth praising, I hope I'll be the first to praise them.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

That's the Creationist position ... are you saying that Evolutionists are now accepting that living organisms reproduce after their Kinds?
That's good.:)

You either haven't read Dawkins, or you are incapable of understanding him. One or other of those is the only rational explanation.

If you believe that evolution dictates that the offspring of two members of a species will be something other than another member of the same species - albeit with possibly very tiny changes that, over the billions of years that you refuse to acknowledge life has existed, cumulatively result in different species - then you don't understand evolution. Given that evolution is carefully, painstakingly, patiently and clearly explained in Dawkins' books, then - again - you either haven't read them, or you read them with a mind more firmly shut than a vault at Fort Knox.

... and therefore has never been observed ...

You seem to have a definition of "therefore" that means something other than "can logically be derived from what went before".

I am totally rational ... and it is you guys who are behaving irrationally by believing that pondkind can transform itself into mankind therough a process of selecting mistakes.

Nobody believes that. It's one of the saddest thing about religion: it forces people who are probably otherwise capable of rational thought to spew logical fallacy after logical fallacy to avoid the cognitive dissonance that inevitably results from convincing yourself that bronze-age myths form rational explanations for anything whatsoever.

J C

koth wrote: »

it's silly mudslinging, i.e. evolutionists are commies :rolleyes:

I said that all Communists were Evolutionists/Atheists ... obviously there are Capitalists as well as Communists ... and people at all points on the scale of state involvement in the economy ... who are Evolutionists and indeed Atheists.

koth wrote: »

It doesn't do anything to state why evolution is wrong, you're just planting the suggestion that evolutionists are evil. You're dropping the level of the discussion to the standard of "you're just stinky".

Respect is earned by the level and content of your posts. You're doing nothing to earn any respect with what you posted.

.. and my point was that reworking old Communist jokes is something not to be engaged in by an Evolutionist due to the strong historical and current linkages between Communism and Evolutionism.

J C

ninja900 wrote: »

Better close all the churches down until they have proof of observing god, then.

I'm not one for closing down institutions or censoring ideas ... so I believe that the institutions of both Christianity and Evolutionism should be allowed to exist and their ideas should be freely questioned and objectively assessed.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Nope. It was based entirely upon my noticing that doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham has a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty.As above -- you may not have had time to read what I wrote - I don't have any great interest one way or the other in the vast majority of creationists who are uninformed, stupid or gullible (in fact, I feel rather sorry for them). The only group whom I hold in contempt are the unscrupulous men and women, like doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham, who willingly feed the uninformed, the stupid and the gullible what they want to hear, for no other reason than it pays well, or it makes them feel good.

As soon as this last group does something worth praising, I hope I'll be the first to praise them.

Nobody expects you to believe in Creation, if you don't want to ... and you are quite entitled to question Creationist ideas and critcise them to your hearts desire ...
... but in a pluralist multi-cultural society you are expected to be tolerant and respectful towards those with whom you disagree ... and to not make unfounded, deeply prejudicial, inflammatory, personal remarks about entire faith groups with whom you have a difference of theological or scientific opinion.

At the very least, you should stand up your statement about Ken Ham having 'a very troubled relationship with accuracy and honesty'.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I said that all Communists were Evolutionists/Atheists ... obviously there are Capitalists as well as Communists ... and people at all points on the scale of state involvement in the economy ... who are Evolutionists and indeed Atheists.

.. and my point was that reworking old Communist jokes is something not to be engaged in by an Evolutionist due to the strong linkages between Communism and Evolutionism.

yes, I got the point the first time around, "commies are/were evolutionsists". It still does nothing to lend any credibility to the "bible stories as science" that is creationism. Would you like to move beyond mudslinging?

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

You either haven't read Dawkins, or you are incapable of understanding him. One or other of those is the only rational explanation.

Long on unfounded generalistions ... but short on specifics.

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you believe that evolution dictates that the offspring of two members of a species will be something other than another member of the same species - albeit with possibly very tiny changes that, over the billions of years that you refuse to acknowledge life has existed, cumulatively result in different species - then you don't understand evolution. Given that evolution is carefully, painstakingly, patiently and clearly explained in Dawkins' books, then - again - you either haven't read them, or you read them with a mind more firmly shut than a vault at Fort Knox.

I have read the book ... I saw plenty of evidence for changes within Kinds (using pre-existing genetic information) ... but no evidence for the spontaneous production of new functional systems and structures required to 'transition' from Pondkind to Mankind.

If you have seen such evidence in this book ... please present it.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Nobody believes that. It's one of the saddest thing about religion: it forces people who are probably otherwise capable of rational thought to spew logical fallacy after logical fallacy to avoid the cognitive dissonance that inevitably results from convincing yourself that bronze-age myths form rational explanations for anything whatsoever.

... I could say exactly the same thing about Evolutionsts spewing Darwinian myths and wishful thinking all over the place ... and where will that get us?

J C

koth wrote: »

yes, I got the point the first time around, "commies are/were evolutionsists". It still does nothing to lend any credibility to the "bible stories as science" that is creationism. Would you like to move beyond mudslinging?

It was Robin who engaged in the mudslinging by reworking an old Communist joke and substituting Creationists for Communists ... and I have merely pointed out that the correct substitution for Communists (when it comes to the 'origins' question) is Evolutionists, given the fact that Communist Mythology assigns Evolution supreme worship as the only acceptable origins explanation ... and historically, 're-education' in the Gulags beckoned for anybody who disagreed.:eek:

Delirium

J C wrote: »

It was Robin who engaged in the mudslinging by reworking the old Communist joke and substituting Creationists for Communists ... and I have merely pointed out that the correct substitution for Communists (when it comes to the 'origins' question) is Evolutionists, given the fact that Communist Mythology assigns Evolution supreme worship as the only acceptable origins explanation ... and historically, 're-education' in the Gulags beckoned for anybody who disagreed.:eek:

so that's a no then to less mudslinging and more discussion.

J C

koth wrote: »

so that's a no then to less mudslinging and more discussion.

I'm not mudlsinging at all ... I'm merely holding up a mirror to reflect back some of the mud thrown in my direction.

I'll take down the mirror when you guys stop throwing the mud.:)

Delirium

J C wrote: »

I'm not mudlsinging at all ... I'm merely holding a mirror up to reflect back some of the mud thrown in my direction.

I'll take down the mirror when you guys stop throwing the mud.:)

a somewhat hypocritical stance to take considering your recent lamentations about the lack of respect for the content of your posts.

J C

koth wrote: »

a somewhat hypocritical stance to take considering your recent lamentations about the lack of respect for the content of your posts.

I think that deflecting back some of the mud thrown in my direction, is a very measured and proportionate response.

If you don't like mud coming back at you ... please cease throwing it, in the first place ... at my parabolic reflector!!:eek:.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

I'm not one for closing down institutions or censoring ideas ... so I believe that the institutions of both Christianity and Evolutionism should be allowed to exist and their ideas should be freely questioned and objectively assessed.

You are both and at the same time setting up christianity and evolution as 'belief systems' while also setting them as diametrically opposed, they're not.

Most christians accept evolution as not conflicting with their belief.

Evolution is certainly not a belief system, no more than the fact that the earth is round is a 'belief'.

If you are prepared to deny provable fact there is no point discussing with you.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I have read the book ... I saw plenty of evidence for changes within Kinds (using pre-existing genetic information) ... but no evidence for the spontaneous production of new functional systems and structures required to 'transition' from Pondkind to Mankind.

If you have seen such evidence in this book ... please present it.

Have you read The Greatest Show on Earth?

When you read Dawkins' books, is there anything in them that you can point to and say "this is untrue, and here is my evidence that disproves it"? Or do you simply read his books and mentally elide everything that is incompatible with your beliefs?

Because, frankly, I don't believe you've read his books. If you've read them, you haven't understood them. It would be impossible for you to ask the stupid questions about evolution you do if you had actually read and understood his books.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

Have you read The Greatest Show on Earth?

When you read Dawkins' books, is there anything in them that you can point to and say "this is untrue, and here is my evidence that disproves it"? Or do you simply read his books and mentally elide everything that is incompatible with your beliefs?

I find that the facts are true ... but they simply don't add up to any plausible evidence for the supposed transition of pondkind into mankind.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because, frankly, I don't believe you've read his books. If you've read them, you haven't understood them. It would be impossible for you to ask the stupid questions about evolution you do if you had actually read and understood his books.

Of course, I have read his books ... Prof Dawkins is a very good ... and interesting writer ... and I have learned a lot from reading his books.

J C

oscarBravo wrote: »

You are both and at the same time setting up christianity and evolution as 'belief systems' while also setting them as diametrically opposed, they're not.

Most christians accept evolution as not conflicting with their belief.

... but these are Theistic Evolutionists who believe that God intervened at various times to 'tinker with' Evolution ... which is in direct contradiction of the Atheisitic variety of Evolution which holds that life created and evolved itself.

oscarBravo wrote: »

Evolution is certainly not a belief system, no more than the fact that the earth is round is a 'belief'.

If you are prepared to deny provable fact there is no point discussing with you.

Natural selection and genetic drift are certainly observable facts, that Creationists also agree on.
However, the idea that Pondkind 'evolved' into Mankind has never been observed ... and thus it is indeed a belief.

robindch

Reports are coming in -- my fingers can barely type the words -- that there may not be enough of the uninformed, the gullible and the stupid in North America:

http://fatlip.leoweekly.com/2014/01/06/ken-ham-ark-encounter-close-to-failure-because-of-atheists-secular-media-and-possibly-the-devil-himself/

Seems that doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham can't find enough rich fundamentalists to, uh, fund his mental "Ark Encounter" and instead of calling on the financial clout of any infinite beings he happens to represent, instead, he's chosen to blame "atheists attempting to register for the bond offering and disrupting it, to secular bloggers and reporters" for destroying his dreams:

Doctor-doctor-doctor-doctor Ham wrote:

Please be aware that the associated complications and struggles have been beyond our control. The battles were another reminder of the truth of Ephesians 6:12: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

As you have read in some of my prior emails, many challenges and road blocks came up as we worked through the stages of the bond offering and the first closing. From atheists attempting to register for the bond offering and disrupting it, to secular bloggers and reporters writing very misleading and inaccurate articles about the bonds, to brokerage firms saying “yes” but after reading these incorrect reports saying “no” in allowing the Ark bonds into their client accounts—the obstacles were numerous and disruptive. Frankly, it has been an extremely stressful and frustrating time for all of us.

For many of you, I know this may have caused some confusion, extra steps, and even frustration, which perhaps led you to not be able to move forward or to have doubts about participating in the Ark bond offering. Several persons directly involved in the Ark bonds process have indicated to us that they have never experienced the level of opposition as we have encountered. It’s an indication of the immense spiritual battle we are in, as per Ephesians 6 above.

As I’ve written to you before, the attacks we have seen on the Ark bond offering have just confirmed for me that the Enemy does not want this project to go ahead. Actually, though, the opposition just encourages me. You see, if we weren’t involved in a vital Bible-proclaiming outreach that should have a massive impact on the hearts and lives of countless people, I don’t believe we would see this sort of opposition.

A pat on the back all 'round, folks - atheists are stronger than the christian god!

Sarky

Oh, he's so bitter about it too. How delightful.

legspin

Sarky wrote: »

Oh, he's so bitter about it too. How delightful.

Yes, the schadenfreude is at a goodly level over this.

Hotblack Desiato

OscarBravo didn't post those quotes, J C...

J C wrote: »

... but these are Theistic Evolutionists who believe that God intervened at various times to 'tinker with' Evolution ...

Fine. What evidence do they have for this belief?

However, the idea that Pondkind 'evolved' into Mankind has never been observed ... and thus it is indeed a belief.

Laughable really. Has god been observed? Has Genesis-style creationism been observed?

Of course we didn't observe the evolution of mankind, we only arrived at the end. But we can infer what happened from the evidence around us. A story book isn't any kind of evidence for anything.

Sarky

It's evidence that staying out in the sun too long leads bronze-age goat herders to some really crazy places.

oscarBravo

J C wrote: »

I find that the facts are true ...

...including his painstakingly detailed exposition of the fact that the Earth is over four billion years old?

bumper234

Sarky wrote: »

It's evidence that staying out in the sun too long leads bronze-age goat herders to some really crazy places.

They had all of the best hallucinogenic drugs back then, lucky bronze age b@$¥@&%s

[-0-]

Eight examples of evolution in action:

1. The Peppered Moth
Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds. The peppered moth as an example of evolution has been attacked recently, usually as to the cause of the shift in coloration, but the example still stands as a major shift in a species caused by mutations leading to variation and natural selection.

2. Live Birth in three-toed Skinks
The example of the peppered moth is a nice one for textbooks because it uses a single trait. Speciation involves many mutations leading to significant changes. The yellow bellied three-toed skink (Saiphos equalis) is a lizard of New South Wales, in Australia, that appears to be undergoing the change from laying eggs to live birth. Since these skinks can either lay eggs or give birth, it gives scientists the chance to study the adaptations necessary for live birth. Skink embryos encased in an egg have an extra source of calcium that the live born skinks lack. It turns out that this nutritional difference is made up by the mother secreting extra calcium for the young held inside her. This looks like the first step on the road to developing a system like the mammalian placenta. Skinks living on the coast tend to lay eggs, probably because the warm weather is predictable and sufficient for embryonic development. Those skinks living in the cooler mountains tend to give birth to live young, the mother’s body providing a more stable temperature. It is to be predicted that these two populations will at some point separate into different species as each population becomes fixed in its reproductive strategy.

This brings up a common question in creationists – If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? Well, with the skinks we would see two species formed, an egg laying and a live birthing species. Each would be best suited for their habitat. If live birthing skinks evolved from egg layers, why are there still egg layers? Because each is adapted for its niche.

3. The Arms Race Between Crabs and Muscles
Evolution often happens in tandem; a predator evolves an improved hunting method, and any mutations in the prey species that aid survivability will be selected for leading to a change in the prey population. We do not have to wait for a predator to evolve to observe this, however; modern humans have been transporting species around the world, and thus we can observe new species interactions. The Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus sanguineus) is an invasive species in New England which feeds on the native blue mussels. It has recently been observed that mussels, when they detect Asian shore crabs, develop thicker shells to stop the crabs eating them. This shell thickening behavior is costly to the mussels, and so is heavily regulated. The evolutionary factor here is that only mussels from regions where Asian shore crabs are endemic will thicken their walls when exposed to the crabs. Those mussels from other regions do not detect the crabs as a threat. Here we observe the starting shots in an evolutionary arms race.

4. Italian Wall Lizards
In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

5. Cane Toads
The cane toad in Australia is probably one of the world’s most famous invasive species. It does immense harm to agriculture and native species. Australia is big, for those who don’t know, and it takes time for an invasive species to spread. Those toads at the front of the invasion wave are likely those best adapted for spreading fastest. Of course, these fast-spreading toads will breed with each other as only other fast toads will be at the front. This is charmingly called ‘the Olympic village effect’ and will reinforce the adaptations which put these toads at the front. When toads at the front of the invasion wave were studied, they were found to be bigger, hardier, had longer legs allowing for greater speed, and were more active. As a result of these sorts of adaptations the rate at which cane toads spread has been increasing ever since they were introduced.

6. Darwin's Finches
This is not going to be a simple recap of Darwin’s original observations of adaptation amongst the finches of the Galapagos. These finches are still helping evolution be understood. Peter and Rosemary Grant studied the finches on one of the Galapagos Islands, and have observed evolutionary change caused by direct competition of two rival species. The medium ground finch was well established on the isle of Daphne, and had been studied in depth. Its beak was suited perfectly for cracking large nuts. In 1982, the large ground finch from a neighboring island arrived. These larger finches could drive away the native medium ground finches and would eat all the large nuts. Over the period of study, the medium ground finches of Daphne island were found to have developed smaller beaks more suited to the smaller nuts, ignored by the invading larger finches. This is a classic study in evolutionary biology.

7. Butterflies and Parasites
Studying evolution can take decades, but occasionally change happens incredibly rapidly. The Blue Moon Butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) of the Samoan islands was being attacked by a parasite which destroyed male embryos. This led to a gender imbalance whereby males made up only 1% of the butterfly population. However, within ten generations (~1 year) males had returned to 40% of the population. This is not because the parasite has disappeared, it is still present, but it is no longer deadly to male embryos. This case shows how a mutation giving an advantage can rapidly spread throughout a population. Any male with the ability to survive infection would be able to mate with a great many females, due to the paucity of other males, and spread his immunity through the gene pool.

8. Evolution in the lab
As the huge array of drug resistant pathogens grows we are learning that evolution is easiest to observe in species with a quick generation turnover. Since 1988, in the lab of Richard Lenski, the evolution of twelve E. coli populations from a single ancestor strain has been studied. Since then, over 50,000 generations of E. coli have been and gone, and the differences between the populations and each population from the ancestor strain have been documented. With samples of each population taken regularly the accumulated genetic changes can be followed with ease. Over time the bacteria have become far more efficient at growing under the conditions used. This study has provided evidence of how evolution actually occurs. One of the populations developed the ability to utilize citrate as a nutrient, something otherwise unknown in E. coli under similar conditions. “Life Evolves!” This quote is from a brilliant letter Lenski wrote to a particularly odious creationist. The series of letters can be found here

Source: http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/2fLgDx

Brian Shanahan

[-0-] wrote: »

Eight examples of evolution in action:


4. Italian Wall Lizards
In 1971, ten Italian wall lizards (Podarcis sicula) were introduced to the island of Pod Mrčaru from a neighboring island. The lizards were left for decades, and compared to the colony from which they were taken. The wall lizards on Pod Mrčaru, having passed through a tiny genetic bottleneck, were found to have thrived and adapted to their new island. They were found to have shifted from a mainly insectivorous diet to one heavy in vegetation. This diet change seems to have driven dramatic changes in the lizards. The head of the Pod Mrčaru lizards is larger, and has a far greater bite force. These are key adaptations for dealing with chewing leaves. The most exciting sign of evolution is the development of cecal valves, muscles used to separate portions of the intestine. These serve to slow the passage of food through the intestine and give time for the bacteria in the gut to breakdown the plant matter for absorption. This is an entirely novel development in the Italian wall lizard, and a major adaptation.

Amusingly enough creatards are trying to use this to show that goddidit!

72DSpecial

nagirrac wrote: »

The modern synthesis continues to evolve and there are many evolutionary biologists today who would not describe theselves as Darwinists. For example there are many who believe random genetic drift and not natural selection is the primary mechanism of evolution (Larry Moran for example).

What I am saying is that Darwin's theory tells part of the story of evolution.

The modern synthesis only considers random mutation of genes over time leading to changes driven by natural selection, and recently has accepted random genetic drift. It does not yet incorporate epigenetics, behavior or language contributions.

I like this - though the use of the term 'Darwinist' is a bit out of kilter. I would suggest tat %99.99 of evolutionary biologists outside of the 'creation science' block do in fact support (the word 'believe' has no place in this argument) the theory of evolution first published by Darwin and still developing with our growing knowledge base.

Mendel uncovered many facts about genetics without actually fully understanding the process or the means by which it works.

Random genetic drift is like an eddy current - it may be a part of the process, but the main 'current' still moves forward driven by the brutality of the natural world and it's ability to ruthlessly filter out failure.

Epigenetic studies may lead to the discovery of new mechanisms of evolution, but the basic theory - i.e. that survivors pass on survivor traits - is sound.

72DSpecial

All this talk of 'kinds' is counter productive an irrelevant. Evolution is a complicated process that cannot be described in such terms.
All the spurious arguments made by creationists have been debunked. The eye, the rotating flagellum, 'missing links', etc. - all debunked.
The main problem is that many people do not have a good basic understanding of our present scientific knowledge. Thus people can make arguments using sources that are out of date or just plain wrong.

A good example is the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory. You can make all the arguments you like, but I have seen and examined first hand some of the samples of moon rock and I can assure you as a geologist these rocks are not of this world. Neither are they of asteroid / comet origin. They are basalts which were produced a very long time ago (fission track and Strontium / Rubidium dating) in an environment devoid of atmospheric oxygen.

Another example is the arguments about dating - Many creationists do not understand (or want to understand?) the basic principles of how we date rocks (and the fossils in them) and other materials such as archaeological artifacts. Carbon dating works for recent stuff, but other methods must be used for older and non-biological material. Yet creationists will disagree with any dating method which does not give them the answer they want - i.e. 'god did it'.

This lack of knowledge and understanding is the main problem with any of these arguments.

And this is the danger that religion poses - If all the answers are in your holy book, why look any further? In fact your religious leader may tell you it is a 'sin' to look any further! Thus religion (particularly theistic creationist religion) promotes ignorance and a frightening ability to ignore all the facts.