Bonam Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) No it doesn't.. evolution doesn't act...it is random but because the opportunities are so great, it becomes a question of odds that some mutation renders itself either benefiocial or detrimental and again it is only a question of odds that the mutation is passed along... Evolution has no mind, no thought..if anything is acting...it is random chance. This is a matter of semantics. Consider a physical example: a gas expands to fill an empty space? Why? Because there is a greater chance for a particle from a high pressure region to go into low pressure region than vice versa. It is based purely on probability, there is no actual force that is applied, on the microscopic level. That's just basic statistical mechanics. And yet, on a macroscopic scale, it is entirely predictable that the the high pressure gas will expand to fill low pressure areas. In fact, we can directly measure (and even predict) the force due to the pressure of this gas. The pressure difference acts to cause movement. That something acts does not imply a mind or thought (you are not arguing against a proponent of intelligently guided evolution). Pressure gradients act on gasses to move them into lower pressure regions. Gravity acts to apply forces on objects that have mass to cause an acceleration towards each other. Electromagnetic forces act on charged particles to alter their velocities as prescribed by the laws of electromagnetism. Evolution (specifically, natural evolution of terrestrial lifeforms) acts on the genetic material of species to adapt them to their environments. The fact that the process is statistical in nature does not in any way make this not so. All of the millions of mutations and combinations that happen as part of the evolutionary process are random. That is the "microscopic view" of evolution. But in the macroscopic view, it causes species to become better adapted to their environment. Just like the pressure gradient for the gas, there is a selection pressure for genetic changes. And on the whole, it causes a net action, the action being to become better suited to survive and reproduce in the prevalent conditions. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, feel free to read more about natural selection here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Edited April 7, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) Unless he has admitted he is afraid, I am afraid that is conjecture on your part. Action speaks louder than words. Of course he is afraid. He's afraid he'll be exposed as a fraud! There goes the gravy train...and the demi-god status he enjoys... My own reasons are there is no point to debate fanatsy topics with people who believe in the tooth fairy. Mind you, if I was paid to, I would happily waste my time... That's your own reason. You don't have the same status as Dawkins. If you write a book being purposefully offensive and insulting, admitting that your goal is to bust someone's belief/doctrine, and declare war....well the least you could do is defend your position when the seiging begins! Obviously he cannot. Edited April 7, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Furthermore, it only underlines what happened to him in that first video in the introduction.... He got STUMPED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Furthermore, it only underlines what happened to him in that first video in the introduction.... He got STUMPED! And yet we know that information is added, altered and deleted in genomes all the time, and even have observed examples of it. So, instead of attacking Dawkins, why aren't you admitting that evolution happens? It strikes me that you suffer from precisely the same flaws you claim he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 If you write a book being purposefully offensive and insulting, admitting that your goal is to bust someone's belief/doctrine, and declare war....well the least you could do is defend your position when the seiging begins! I really couldn't care less if someone believes in the tooth fairy or the zombie jesus. And I really don't care if they propagate their fantasies on their own dime either. As long as they keep their fantasies to the,selves and don't demand to foist their superstitions and prejudices on the young... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 T All of the millions of mutations and combinations that happen as part of the evolutionary process are random. That is the "microscopic view" of evolution. But in the macroscopic view, it causes species to become better adapted to their environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection Un huh...I am not saying that natural selection doesn't happen... But just as some species become better adapted through randomness, some mutations work the other way. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maladaptation But again....earlobs..we evolved them, some of us have them, some don't. They really serve no purpose. The bulk of evolutionary changes can be seen this way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Because Richard Dawkins paused in a video to answer a question, your faith in a particular religion has been validated and evolution is now disproved? Sounds like a miracle to me.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 Because Richard Dawkins paused in a video to answer a question, your faith in a particular religion has been validated and evolution is now disproved? Sounds like a miracle to me.... Evolution has always been disproved! The vudeo of Dawkins' getting stumped....plus his cowardly refusal to face his challengers - scientists creationist - in a debate proves that Dawkins is just full of bravado! He writes POPULAR SCIENCE! Riding on the backs of fundamentalist atheists who have deep-seated hatred for religion and God. He caters to their need of assurance, and "pay-back" mentality. Most of these fundamentalist atheists are usually former Christians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 8, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 I really couldn't care less if someone believes in the tooth fairy or the zombie jesus. And I really don't care if they propagate their fantasies on their own dime either. I couldn't care less either what others chose to believe. Obviously Dawkins didn't think that way. He wrote books. He co-founded the New Atheist Movement. He declared war. As long as they keep their fantasies to the,selves and don't demand to foist their superstitions and prejudices on the young... You see, that's what we Christians are complaining about. This mythological frog prince being foisted on the young as fact! Evolutionists keep harping about the missing link. Heck, what missing link? The whole chain is missing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 Evolution has always been disproved! And yet here I provided evidence for information being added to genomes through mutations. It sounds like Creationism has been disprove.d What a pity, and you wasted all that time on Dawkins. The vudeo of Dawkins' getting stumped....plus his cowardly refusal to face his challengers - scientists creationist - in a debate proves that Dawkins is just full of bravado! He writes POPULAR SCIENCE! Riding on the backs of fundamentalist atheists who have deep-seated hatred for religion and God. He caters to their need of assurance, and "pay-back" mentality. Most of these fundamentalist atheists are usually former Christians. Fortunately we have entire libraries filled with evidence for evolution, so we don't need to worry about Dawkins' laymen books on evolution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) You see, that's what we Christians are complaining about. This mythological frog prince being foisted on the young as fact! Evolutionists keep harping about the missing link. Heck, what missing link? The whole chain is missing! And here you really go off the rails. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. What you really mean is "Creationists". Christian and Creationist are not the same thing, and to assert that is another example of your bearing false witness. PS. Has anybody else noticed that Betsy's starting to ignore me? Edited April 8, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 And here you really go off the rails. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. What you really mean is "Creationists". Christian and Creationist are not the same thing, and to assert that is another example of your bearing false witness. PS. Has anybody else noticed that Betsy's starting to ignore me? She is ignoring me too. I noticed that in a couple threads like this one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 (edited) And here you really go off the rails. There are plenty of Christians who accept evolution. What you really mean is "Creationists". Christian and Creationist are not the same thing, and to assert that is another example of your bearing false witness. PS. Has anybody else noticed that Betsy's starting to ignore me? She is ignoring me too. I noticed that in a couple threads like this one Well, at least she already explained why in one of the other threads when she posted these gems from the bible: Luke 9:5 "And whoever will not receive you, when you go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet as a testimony against them." Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 1 Tim 6:5 useless wranglings [fn] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself. Basically, commandments to ignore and look down upon whoever doesn't instantly bow to her arguments. Edited April 8, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 Evolutionists keep harping about the missing link. Heck, what missing link? The whole chain is missing! No evolutionists don't harp on the missing link.....but palaeontologists keep finding them anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 8, 2011 Report Share Posted April 8, 2011 No evolutionists don't harp on the missing link.....but palaeontologists keep finding them anyway... Betsy's now invoking 100 year old complaints against evolution. I swear I can see the sweat on her brow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Exchanges between Michael Ruse and Daniel Dennett 01/18/2007[...] Dr Ruse was kind enough to let William Dembski reproduce an exchange that Ruse had with Daniel Dennett about the same issues. As Michael Ruse remarked when he gave me permission to quote the following exchange between him and Daniel Dennett: “feel free to quote — after all, I am in deep sh** already!!!” It’s more than worth the time to read it. Ruse is spot on at every level. Here’s a few Gem: I think that you and Richard [Dawkins] are absolute disasters in the fight against intelligent design – we are losing this battle, not the least of which is the two new supreme court justices who are certainly going to vote to let it into classrooms – what we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues – neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas – it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims – more than this, we are in a fight, and we need to make allies in the fight, not simply alienate everyone of good will. [...] More... http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Betsy's now invoking 100 year old complaints against evolution. Yeah you got that right, 100 years and counting! After a century, we're still waiting! Where's the clear evidence? Where's the bloody link? Give us one. Just one. A single one! Of course there's no link. The whole chain is missing! Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) "DAWKINS peddling pseudo-science; vulgarizes Darwinism!" Although Lewontin wants the public to accept science as the only source of truth, he freely admits that mainstream science itself is not free of the hokum that Sagan so often found in fringe science. As examples he cites three influential scientists who are particularly successful at writing for the public: E. O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins, and Lewis Thomas, each of whom has put unsubstantiated assertions or counterfactual claims at the very center of the stories they have retailed in the market. Wilson’s Sociobiology and On Human Nature rest on the surface of a quaking marsh of unsupported claims about the genetic determination of everything from altruism to xenophobia. Dawkins’ vulgarizations of Darwinism speak of nothing in evolution but an inexorable ascendancy of genes that are selectively superior, while the entire body of technical advance in experimental and theoretical evolutionary genetics of the last fifty years has moved in the direction of emphasizing nonselective forces in evolution. Thomas, in various essays, propagandized for the success of modern scientific medicine in eliminating death from disease, while the unchallenged statistical compilations on mortality show that in Europe and North America infectious diseases . . . had ceased to be major causes of mortality by the early decades of the twentieth century. Lewontin laments that even scientists frequently cannot judge the reliability of scientific claims outside their fields of speciality, and have to take the word of recognized authorities on faith. "Who am I to believe about quantum physics if not Steven Weinberg, or about the solar system if not Carl Sagan? What worries me is that they may believe what Dawkins and Wilson tell them about evolution." Lewontin fears that non-biologists will fail to recognize that Dawkins is peddling pseudoscience; Maynard Smith fears exactly the same of Gould. http://www.arn.org/ftissues/ft9711/articles/johnson.html Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the notion of using techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to apply to questions of genetic variation and evolution. In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution. In 1979 he and Stephen Jay Gould introduced the term "spandrel" into evolutionary theory. (from Wikipedia) Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) Btw, somebody here talked about Dawkins' meme. Well, here's what Ruse thinks about that meme. I don’t buy into this meme bullsh** http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-ruse-dennett-briefwechsel-the-clash-between-evolution-and-evolutionism/ That's what I call no beating around the bush. Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Yeah you got that right, 100 years and counting! After a century, we're still waiting! Where's the clear evidence? Where's the bloody link? Give us one. Just one. A single one! Of course there's no link. The whole chain is missing! With full references: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodyminded Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Betsy's now invoking 100 year old complaints against evolution. I swear I can see the sweat on her brow. Did you hear about Piltdown Man? Evolution is a fraud..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 No evolutionists don't harp on the missing link.....but palaeontologists keep finding them anyway... Where? If they do, they shouldn't keep it a secret. Tell us! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted April 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 (edited) With full references: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ And heeeeere's the rebutt! A Critique of Douglas Theobalds 29 Evidences for Macroevolution by Ashby Camp NOTE: The paper critiqued in this article was subsequently changed by Mr. Theobald, who also published a criticism of this articleand changed it too, after Mr. Camp responded. Neither this article, nor Mr. Camps response to Theobalds criticism, have been altered to accommodate Mr. Theobolds on-going adjustments and modifications. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp On-going "adjustments" and "modifications." Fill-in-the-gaps, more like it. Edited April 9, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Where? If they do, they shouldn't keep it a secret. Tell us! They aren't keeping it a secret. But you don't want to listen anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted April 9, 2011 Report Share Posted April 9, 2011 Where? If they do, they shouldn't keep it a secret. Tell us! The idea was antiquated press talk. Scientists haven't talked in terms of "missing links" in generations. They don't need to. They have the molecular data to fill in where the fossil record leaves gaps. Besides, what about the hominid fossil record do you feel is incomplete? We have a clear line between the early bipedal hominoids to modern humans. We don't have every organism, but we hardly need it, any more than any analysis requires ever solitary event or specimen to see trends. Your problem, Betsy, is you know nothing about science, you know nothing about evolution. I'll wager you couldn't even describe what evolution is succinctly. 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.