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

J C · 06-01-2014 12:50AM

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 · 06-01-2014 12:52AM

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 · 06-01-2014 12:58AM

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 · 06-01-2014 01:32AM

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 · 06-01-2014 01:57AM

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 · 06-01-2014 11:54PM

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 · 07-01-2014 12:01AM

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 · 07-01-2014 12:09AM

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 · 07-01-2014 12:56AM

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

legspin · 07-01-2014 01:42AM

Sarky wrote: »

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

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

Hotblack Desiato · 07-01-2014 01:49AM

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 · 07-01-2014 02:44AM

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

oscarBravo · 07-01-2014 03:05AM

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 · 07-01-2014 07:54AM

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-] · 14-01-2014 02:42PM

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 · 14-01-2014 11:41PM

[-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 · 15-01-2014 03:09PM

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 · 15-01-2014 03:34PM

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.

J C · 18-01-2014 08:35PM

[-0-] wrote: »

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

Eight examples of Natural Selection in action within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity and epigenetic shifts (that also use pre-existing genetic CFSI within the organisms concerned).

[-0-] wrote: »

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.

... and all they have 'achieved' after 50,000 generations (equivalent to 1,500,000 Human years) is the ability to use Citrate ... an ability which is found in many other bacteria already ... bacteria like E. aerogenes (which is microscopically identical to E Coli and therefore the same Kind).

Since Our Lord was on Earth bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed in the year Zero AD ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man over a similar number of generations.

Somebody is engaging in wishful thinking here ... and it's certainly not me!!!:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's like arguing with a child.

Quite ... but not in a good way ... for Evolution!!!:D

Sarky · 18-01-2014 08:58PM

J C wrote: »

... and all they have 'achieved' after 50,000 generations (equivalent to 1,500,000 Human years) is the ability to use Citrate ... an ability which is found in many other bacteria already ... bacteria like E. aerogenes (which is microscopically identical to E Coli and therefore the same Kind).

Since Our Lord was on Earth bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed in the year Zero AD ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man over a similar number of generations.

I just don't know where to even begin with this latest idiocy. "Oh, that evolution of a new trait from scratch doesn't count because I don't believe in convergent evolution despite the evidence I JUST LOOKED AT". You're painfully bad at this. Do you get a sexual kick out of humiliating yourself in front of microbiologists or something? Let's just add phylogenetics to the ever-increasing list of things you're clueless about. It really is sad that you're so proud of your boundless ignorance.

Somebody is engaging in wishful thinking here ... and it's certainly not me!!!:)

You do literally nothing else. Will you ever argue rationally?

J C · 18-01-2014 09:36PM

Sarky wrote: »

I just don't know where to even begin with this latest idiocy. "Oh, that evolution of a new trait from scratch doesn't count because I don't believe in convergent evolution despite the evidence I JUST LOOKED AT". You're painfully bad at this. Do you get a sexual kick out of humiliating yourself in front of microbiologists or something? Let's just add phylogenetics to the ever-increasing list of things you're clueless about. It really is sad that you're so proud of your boundless ignorance.

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things, I don't feel in the least 'humiliated' in front of my fellow microbiologist colleagues.
... and besides engaging in some lame 'name calling' do you have anything substantive to say about my substantive points? ...
... that the cited examples of supposed 'evolution' are eight examples of Natural Selection in action within Kinds and using pre-existing genetic diversity and epigenetic shifts (that also use pre-existing genetic CFSI within the organisms concerned).

... and over the past 2,000 years, bacteria have undergone almost 4 million generations equivalent to 40 million years of mammalian 'time' at an average generation length of 10 years ... or roughly the time taken to supposedly 'evolve' a rat-like creature into a man ... and yet bacteria are pretty much indestinguishable from the bacteria that existed 2,000 years ago ... while 'evolution' is supposed to have changed a rat into a Man through Natural Selection ... over a similar number of generations.

Sarky wrote: »

You do literally nothing else. Will you ever argue rationally?

'Physician cure thy self' ... and take your own advice ... yourself.:)

Sarky · 18-01-2014 09:50PM

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

MrPudding · 18-01-2014 09:53PM

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

What other things? I know you have also claimed to be a mathematician...

MrP

Brian Shanahan · 18-01-2014 10:29PM

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,

And I suppose your alleged wife reads your alleged parchments using her alleged microscope, which I talked about before.

J C · 18-01-2014 10:40PM

Sarky wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0

... the things that people suffer ... for their faith ... in Evolution!!!

Just because the poor girl thinks that she is descended from an Amoeba ... is no reason to laugh at her.

You're very bold Sarky for putting such ideas in our heads!!!:D

J C · 18-01-2014 10:42PM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And I suppose your alleged wife reads your alleged parchments using her alleged microscope, which I talked about before.

... she doesn't need a microscope for either my parchments ... or my testimonials !!!:D:)

Sarky · 18-01-2014 10:45PM

Presumably because crayon doesn't do small letters very well.

J C · 18-01-2014 10:49PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

J C, once again you show you have absolutely no idea what evolution actually means. I'd try to explain it to you but 1) You won't listen and 2) Others with much more knowledge than me on the topic have tried and failed over the years.

... it has been my experience that the phrase 'tried and failed' comes up quite a lot with Evolution ... something to do with it's invalidity, I think.:)

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I cringe a little every time I see the word 'kind' used in this context. It's as if a load of creationists got together and thought 'how can we talk about species without using the word species?'. Because of course that would be giving ground to the 'evolutionists' wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

Kind encompasses a number of species descended from a common Kind (or ancestor) ... something that Evolutionists are quite familiar with ... only they then go and say that just because a Lion and a Tiger are descended from a common ancestor ... that it somehow 'logically' follows that they are also descended from an Amoeba!!!
... and thereby lose all credibility, in the process.:):pac:

J C · 18-01-2014 11:01PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Apart from the fact that no one expect you says any of that nonsense of course. But sure who needs facts when the big man upstairs is on your side.

When the 'Big Man Upstairs' is on your side ... so too are the facts!!!:)

Anyway, is it not true that Evolutionists believe that all mammals are ultimately descended from a single-celled 'common ancestor' organism that would have looked something like an Amoeba???

obplayer · 18-01-2014 11:14PM

J C wrote: »

... as I'm a qualified microbiologist, amongst other things,....:)

Could I ask where you studied please?

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

Comments