ToadBrother Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Well, I wonder if there are any other creationists out there who will offer up a theory that explains common endogenous retroviral genes in different species of animals....since that is the question I wanted an answer for over the last five or six posts! No kidding. It strikes me that ERVs are among the most compelling evidences for evolution and Common Descent. There are other really neat examples, like the gene responsible for vitamin C production. It's busted in all the great apes (including us) in exactly the same way. It works perfectly fine in other mammals, except guinea pigs, where it's busted, but in a different way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 This has to be the most pathetic word game I've ever seen. "Appearance" means "resemblances". Dawkins gives an example in Climbing Mount Improbable of a naturally weathered stone outcropping which resembles John F. Kennedy. There is an appearance of design in this, but there is no consciousness, and no real design, because the stone's appearance is simply the product of various erosive forces.Perhaps, rather playing moronic semantics games with the writings of people who you have clearly not read, you might try actually reading what they write. It's becoming clearer and clearer that you know nothing about evolution, and certainly know nothing about what Dawkins was saying. For Gestalt psychologists, little sticks moving on a screen are immediately and necessarily identified as people walking by human subjects. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 For Gestalt psychologists, little sticks moving on a screen are immediately and necessarily identified as people walking by human subjects. Well, thanks for that in depth post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 No kidding. It strikes me that ERVs are among the most compelling evidences for evolution and Common Descent. There are other really neat examples, like the gene responsible for vitamin C production. It's busted in all the great apes (including us) in exactly the same way. It works perfectly fine in other mammals, except guinea pigs, where it's busted, but in a different way. I recall geneticist - Francis Collins, citing that broken vitamin C gene example when he was challenged by an interviewer for what he considered the "one" best evidence of evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Well, thanks for that in depth post. Even in shallow water, toads are living through metamorphosis that cannot really be called evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When I was slowly force to move into the core of the city - a wealthy friend congratulated me on my new envionment and my "evolution" - I wrote back to him ----"I have not evolved to fit into your world - I had to de-evolve to fit into your world - What some consider rising out the primordial soup as an improvement or an evolution - some times diving down into the soup and swimming to the bottom is in realty more evolved - we also assume as we travel into the future that we improve and become evolved..when in fact sometimes traveling back in time and de-evolving is superiour......evolution does not mean progress - it could be degression. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Even in shallow water, toads are living through metamorphosis that cannot really be called evolution. Um, that's developmental biology. No one says that's evolution, though, because it is ultimately a process dictated to by the triggering of key developmental genes, it too is determined by evolutionary forces. But the transformation from fertilized ovum into fully-formed organism is not an evolutionary process, it is a developmental process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When I was slowly force to move into the core of the city - a wealthy friend congratulated me on my new envionment and my "evolution" - I wrote back to him ----"I have not evolved to fit into your world - I had to de-evolve to fit into your world - What some consider rising out the primordial soup as an improvement or an evolution - some times diving down into the soup and swimming to the bottom is in realty more evolved - we also assume as we travel into the future that we improve and become evolved..when in fact sometimes traveling back in time and de-evolving is superiour......evolution does not mean progress - it could be degression. Just by looking at the disappearance of baby-boys around Sarnia, we know that all the new artificial chemical compounds, produced by science, that are entering our bodies, lower our chances to allow the next generations to adapt to their surroundings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 When I was slowly force to move into the core of the city - a wealthy friend congratulated me on my new envionment and my "evolution" - I wrote back to him ----"I have not evolved to fit into your world - I had to de-evolve to fit into your world - What some consider rising out the primordial soup as an improvement or an evolution - some times diving down into the soup and swimming to the bottom is in realty more evolved - we also assume as we travel into the future that we improve and become evolved..when in fact sometimes traveling back in time and de-evolving is superiour......evolution does not mean progress - it could be degression. Evolution, in biological terms, simply means "change in the genetic makeup of a population over time". There's no forward or backward, only variation in a population (via various forces like mutation, neutral drift, sexual genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, various genetic transcription errors, and so on). Darwin rejected the "ladder of life" notions that had dominated biology up until his time. The whole point of evolution, as he saw it, was that populations were selected by natural forces, and those alone dictated "better" or "worse". In biology, the term "fitness" is used, and the only measure of fitness is whether an organism can live long enough to procreate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Evolution, in biological terms, simply means "change in the genetic makeup of a population over time". There's no forward or backward, only variation in a population (via various forces like mutation, neutral drift, sexual genetic recombination, horizontal gene transfer, various genetic transcription errors, and so on). Darwin rejected the "ladder of life" notions that had dominated biology up until his time. The whole point of evolution, as he saw it, was that populations were selected by natural forces, and those alone dictated "better" or "worse". In biology, the term "fitness" is used, and the only measure of fitness is whether an organism can live long enough to procreate. Thanks for the quick lesson - I believe my point might have actually been to deal with the attitude of evolutionists and creationists - It seems that evolutionists believe that mankind is becoming more intelligent without some silly belief in a god - that stiffles human development - I don't see this as being true - in the alternative - those creationist are also as egotistical as evolutionists...they are pretty much the same as far as attitude - one believes himself superiour over the other. I am a believer in a force and intelligence - GOD --- and believe humanity has been around in it's present form for millions of years - exactly as we are now - with some variations..this makes me unpopular amongst the creationists and the evolutionary people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 17, 2009 Report Share Posted May 17, 2009 Thanks for the quick lesson - I believe my point might have actually been to deal with the attitude of evolutionists and creationists - It seems that evolutionists believe that mankind is becoming more intelligent without some silly belief in a god - that stiffles human development - I don't see this as being true - in the alternative - those creationist are also as egotistical as evolutionists...they are pretty much the same as far as attitude - one believes himself superiour over the other. I am a believer in a force and intelligence - GOD --- and believe humanity has been around in it's present form for millions of years - exactly as we are now - with some variations..this makes me unpopular amongst the creationists and the evolutionary people. None of what you have written has anything to do with biology in general, or evolutionary biology specifically. One more time, and repeat after me, evolution has nothing at all to say about the existence of God, any more than thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, geology, the Standard Model of subatomic particles, climatology, or any other number of countless scientific disciplines. Some of the greatest evolutionary researchers were, in fact, religious. Probably one of the greatest minds in the history of biology was Theodore Dobzhansky, who was also a major critic of Creationism, and wrote a now famous essay entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Did I mention he was an Orthodox Christian? Now maybe Richard Dawkins, who does seem to enjoy himself tweaking theistic ears, might find Dobzhansky's religious beliefs goofy (seeing as Dawkins is an atheist, that's hardly surprising), but the problem even with attacking Dawkins is that none of the science he does in any way broaches on the topic of God's existence. He may write about such things in his popular books, although the ones that deal specifically with biology generally stick to the subject of explaining biological complexity as something shaped by natural forces. Unfortunately, he has become (and made himself) the lightning rod of everyone who wishes to attack evolution as some sort of Godless science, which is false. Science simply cannot deal in the realm of the supernatural, it is explicitly defined as methodological naturalism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 None of what you have written has anything to do with biology in general, or evolutionary biology specifically. One more time, and repeat after me, evolution has nothing at all to say about the existence of God, any more than thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, geology, the Standard Model of subatomic particles, climatology, or any other number of countless scientific disciplines. Some of the greatest evolutionary researchers were, in fact, religious. Probably one of the greatest minds in the history of biology was Theodore Dobzhansky, who was also a major critic of Creationism, and wrote a now famous essay entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Did I mention he was an Orthodox Christian?Now maybe Richard Dawkins, who does seem to enjoy himself tweaking theistic ears, might find Dobzhansky's religious beliefs goofy (seeing as Dawkins is an atheist, that's hardly surprising), but the problem even with attacking Dawkins is that none of the science he does in any way broaches on the topic of God's existence. He may write about such things in his popular books, although the ones that deal specifically with biology generally stick to the subject of explaining biological complexity as something shaped by natural forces. Unfortunately, he has become (and made himself) the lightning rod of everyone who wishes to attack evolution as some sort of Godless science, which is false. Science simply cannot deal in the realm of the supernatural, it is explicitly defined as methodological naturalism. There is not much I can say about nature here and the mutation of life forms are they hopefully adapt to changing conditions - or attempt to mutate in a way that supasses even static environments - I am not really interested in what you have to say - It's acedemic - Creationists are fools....and so are those that look at evolution as not being of some sort of plan or intelligent design..as I mentioned - from a spiritual perspective and understanding that in the realm of super nature - time is not measured in human terms - " a second is a thousand years and a thousand years but a second" - This is key in my mind - evolution and creationism is exactly the same thing..whether it appeared to have taken place in a flash - or appeared (evolved) over millions of years is actually ----within my logic - two ideas that are totally complimentary...no point in debate untill the time issue is understood both camps - that there is no measureable time - that time is a human construct - that both theories are compatable in a place where eternity rules - timelessness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 None of what you have written has anything to do with biology in general, or evolutionary biology specifically. One more time, and repeat after me, evolution has nothing at all to say about the existence of God, any more than thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, geology, the Standard Model of subatomic particles, climatology, or any other number of countless scientific disciplines. Some of the greatest evolutionary researchers were, in fact, religious. Probably one of the greatest minds in the history of biology was Theodore Dobzhansky, who was also a major critic of Creationism, and wrote a now famous essay entitled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Did I mention he was an Orthodox Christian? Kant would respond: science cannot speak about God precisely because it is forced to implicitly presuppose Him in everything that it does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Kant would respond: science cannot speak about God precisely because it is forced to implicitly presuppose Him in everything that it does. Science deals specifically in the domain of the natural. Period. If God is in some way behind it, that's a job for metaphysics or theology. One thing, however, is very clear, Creationism is not science. Science doesn't speak to God, not because somehow or other, science presupposes God, but because saying "God did it" lacks all explanatory power. Since all possible observations can be explained by saying "God did it", there is simply no way to methodologically produce theories if your starting premise is "God is responsible for this phenomona." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benny Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Science deals specifically in the domain of the natural. Period. If God is in some way behind it, that's a job for metaphysics or theology. One thing, however, is very clear, Creationism is not science. Science doesn't speak to God, not because somehow or other, science presupposes God, but because saying "God did it" lacks all explanatory power. Since all possible observations can be explained by saying "God did it", there is simply no way to methodologically produce theories if your starting premise is "God is responsible for this phenomona." I think that creationism is a legitimate collective hysteria precisely for the reason that science is too eager to destroy and adapt nature to our human subjectivity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I think that creationism is a legitimate collective hysteria precisely for the reason that science is too eager to destroy and adapt nature to our human subjectivity. That's pretty fancey talk - no sure if I understand what you just wrote. What I was thinking about an hour ago is that evolutionists eventually step into the realm of eugenics and rather than wait a million years to create better life forms - that they will play creationist and evolutionist all a the same time and attempt to alter humanity in a short life time - and boy what a mess that usually is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 I think that creationism is a legitimate collective hysteria precisely for the reason that science is too eager to destroy and adapt nature to our human subjectivity. "Legitimate collective hysteria"? How can hysteria be legitimate, when, by definition, hysteria is an irrational response. This sentence reads like part gibberish, part psychobabble. Creationism has nothing to do with fear of evil scientists creating Godzillas, and everything to do with the sort of Biblical theology that grew out of the US revivalist movements in the mid-19th century. I'm sure, so far as the kneejerk revulsion that some have to being related to monkeys, that maybe hysteria comes into play, but for the most part, it's simply a case of Biblioatry-gone-wild, where the Bible is held up as some sort of science text, and any scientific discipline that runs counter to any particular literalistic interpretation is wrong, or worse, an attempt to undermine the interpreter's brand of Christianity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 That's pretty fancey talk - no sure if I understand what you just wrote. What I was thinking about an hour ago is that evolutionists eventually step into the realm of eugenics and rather than wait a million years to create better life forms - that they will play creationist and evolutionist all a the same time and attempt to alter humanity in a short life time - and boy what a mess that usually is. Now just hold on here a minute. Eugenics didn't start with evolution, and some of the chief advocates were not biologists at all. This has been a long-standing attempt to undermine evolution by claiming its adherents were Social Darwinists and the like, when in fact, some of the major adherents were Christians, and it was quite popular in the American South, where it merged nicely with older ideas of racial purity. In fact, if there's one lesson that comes down from Darwin's writings, it's that variation is good. Eugenics is really a fancy word for selective breeding, but selective breeding often works by narrowly fixing on a few traits seen as good, sometimes objective traits (like thicker wool on sheep), and sometime extremely subjective (like the long, unsupported spines of Dachshunds). Restricting the gene pool is bad, not good, and this certainly didn't grow out of anything Darwin wrote, but rather out of Galton and his ilk. The most charitable I can be about the Social Darwinist and Eugenics movements is that they were based on a misinterpretation of natural selection and Mendelian inheritance. But just as often as not, these groups were really folks who already had an axe to grind, and were simply trying to bolster their arguments with what was then the latest pseudo-scientific babble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 "Legitimate collective hysteria"? How can hysteria be legitimate, when, by definition, hysteria is an irrational response.This sentence reads like part gibberish, part psychobabble. Creationism has nothing to do with fear of evil scientists creating Godzillas, and everything to do with the sort of Biblical theology that grew out of the US revivalist movements in the mid-19th century. I'm sure, so far as the kneejerk revulsion that some have to being related to monkeys, that maybe hysteria comes into play, but for the most part, it's simply a case of Biblioatry-gone-wild, where the Bible is held up as some sort of science text, and any scientific discipline that runs counter to any particular literalistic interpretation is wrong, or worse, an attempt to undermine the interpreter's brand of Christianity. Glad you said "brand" of Christianity - seeing there are probably at least 500 brands of this product. I have seen hints of science within ancient texts - and I did not get the impression that biblical characters - in the new and old testiment were anti-science..On the contrary - I got a sense that they back then were looking for a firm reality - truth and proof. It's only lately that literalists interpreted scripture without giving it any thought - much like those that assume that Christs mother was a virgin - or that water was turned into wine - when it was not - that water is the miracle...YOU must give all stories careful consideration and place yourself in that period - If you want to gleen knowledge from scripture or science - you had better have the imagination to put yourself there in the minds eye..to travel - and be what you seek to understand- again I will repeat...fear or hysteria have no place in Christianity or science. Fear stupifies - the scientist and the believer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Oh boy, the "Atheism-cum- Evolution Damage Control " is in full swing! The Fundamentalist Brigade came out! ALL HANDS ON DECK! It must be serious. I know you guys are very busy buzzing and scrambling, but can l please interrupt you to share this news: Antony Flew did not just convert from Atheism to Deism. Apparently.... He also wrote a BOOK! And the title of this book? Tadaaaaaa..... There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind By: Anthony Flew Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Hey WIP, we both haven't heard about this guy so anyway I found a little bit about Antony Flew from the "product description" of the on-line bookstore selling his book. It's a Christian bookstore, mind you....but still, it gives a bit of info about him. There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind By: Anthony Flew In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium, the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew, the world's leading atheist, now believes in God. Flew is a pioneer for modern atheism. His famous paper, Theology and Falsification, was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C. S. Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the last five decades. Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He now believes that such evidence exists, and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believer. For the first time, this book will present a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke his previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God. Ever since Flew's announcement, there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this "conversion" means. There Is a God will finally put this debate to rest. This is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker, and where his lifelong intellectual http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Boo...p;item_no=3529X You guys should read his book....to understand exactly what led to his conversion. Okay, that's all. I'll just step out of your way so you can all resume your desperate emergency patch-ups, out-of-context manipulations, twist-and-turns, and creative extrapolations! Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 Hey WIP, we both haven't heard about this guy so anyway I found a little bit about Antony Flew from the "product description" of the on-line bookstore selling his book. It's a Christian bookstore, mind you....but still, it gives a bit of info about him.You guys should read his book....to understand exactly what led to his conversion. Okay, that's all. I'll just step out of your way so you can all resume your desperate emergency patch-ups, out-of-context manipulations, twist-and-turns, and creative extrapolations! Next to J.R.R. Tolkein, C.S. Lewis sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 http://www.rationalistinternational.net/ar...oring_loves_you Flews religious beliefs have zip to do with the validity of evolutionary theory, but the fact that you keep flogging it, referencing, and re-referening it, and re-referencing it yet again.. says a great deal about the ID/creationist mob. You see, you've misrepresented the mans beliefs-- knowingly. Just as you've misrepresented the beliefs of Dawkins, and of Darwin, and likely just about everyone else you've mentioned. And ID 'theory' (misrepresented, since it hardly rises to to the level of hare-brained hypothesis, much less theory) is also a masquerade... religion trying to dress itself up as science, and doing a far less than credible job of it, for the single purpose of sneaking religion into publicly funded classrooms. The sneaking and pretense, the determination to mislead, the misrepresentation and falsification.... those are completely consistent. They call that 'divine deception'... that no sin is too great, if it dupes someone into conversion. Yours is a God of telling whoppers, Betsy. The truth will set you free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) Yours is a God of telling whoppers, Betsy. The truth will set you free. Wanna see a real whopper? Go to DAWKINS thread! Post #259. But I'm telling you now, I won't be responding to you if you write more rubbish like the one you just wrote above! Ain't gonna happen, babe! Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted May 18, 2009 Report Share Posted May 18, 2009 (edited) WHOA! Did I read that Antony Flew article right???? Albert Einstein.....a deist, too? Edited May 18, 2009 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.