Re: Book review: The Twilight of Atheism (Alister McGrath)


Bob wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:17:05 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
>
> >
> > Bob wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 14:38:31 -0700, Arindam Banerjee wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Jack Campin - bogus address wrote:
> >> >> >> The fact of evolution is not in question, but the "study of evolution"
> >> >> >> today involves studying the detailed mechanisms of inheritance,
> >> >> >> mutation, and natural selection.
> >> >> > Indeed. A male and a female have to mutate at the same time and same
> >> >> > place for fertile offspring.
> >> >>
> >> >> It doesn't need to be at the same time and place for a recessive
> >> >> gene and it only takes one for a dominant. Read some genetics.
> >> >
> >> > Do you know what you are talking about? You do not give that
> >> > impression.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'm no expert, but the comment you are replying to is right on the money
> >> according to the education I received. Doesn't take an expert to
> >> understand a basic thing like this. This is on the order of "What's the
> >> capitol of Minnesota?" Even if you don't know the answer offhand it's
> >> pretty easy to look up. Here are some references to help explain how
> >> mutations and inheritance interact and relate to evolution:
> >>
>
> <Clip a lot of stuff complaining that the references I cited do not prove
> the point you were, I assume, objecting to. BTW, I can only assume you are
> objecting to the statement you are responding to since your response was
> simply an insult to the original author and hade no substantive content.>

And what about the insult given to me by the original author? What
makes you neglect that? Let me quote the insult to me "Read some
genetics." By saying this - an intimidatory statement - after making an
irrelevant statement preceding it (irrelevant as it had to do with
disease and not mutation to higher life forms) the orignal author was
showing his disrespect for me. Totally unprovoked, also. I had not
insulted him, or anyone, before. I was merely responding to an answer
to my post by John McCarthy.

Since you support this person and his attitude, what should then be my
attitude for you? Evidently you think that a person with such a name
as mine has to be bullied and suppressed. But at least, you have given
some references to some web sites, and at least one among them had some
relevance to the point under discussion.

> Assuming you disagree with the above comment on the inheritability of
> mutated genes and how that relates to evolution, you will need to do
> better than your original no-content response if you hope to convince
> anyone else.

My point was and is very simple, and already made. It should be clear
to any village idiot not entirely inebriated.

> And yes, none of those references I cited were written with the sole
> purpose of corroborating the statement above that you apparently object to

I object to irrelevancies. I am interested in mathematical
probabilities, and simulation following extensive mathematical
modelling - since that is my living - and I hope John McCarthy shares
this interest, since he is a great in computer science. In the past I
have proposed making a mathematical model for evolution with all known
and relevant data and the most acclaimed theories, and then running a
simulation program, taking into account the rate of mutation, and its
direction, from external stimuli affecting randomness rates. How do
things work out, when subjected to rigorous mathematical analysis?
This sort of research, has it been done? I think, not.

> but they all discuss gene mutations and how they relate to inheritance
> and/or evolution -- among many other things that you refer to (and object
> to as not addresing the specific topic) in your immediate response (which
> I have clipped for brevity). I'm not interested enough to cut and paste
> specific sentences for you. Read them again more carefully. Do your own
> research.

All you did was post some links. I went through them, and found just
one relevant to the topic under discussion. I posted some excerpts
from same. My point remains.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Book review: The Twilight of Atheism (Alister McGrath)
    ... >> <Clip a lot of stuff complaining that the references I cited do not prove ... >> the point you were, I assume, objecting to. ... >> objecting to the statement you are responding to since your response was ... >> simply an insult to the original author and hade no substantive content.> ...
    (rec.arts.books)
  • Re: Why the BF hate? Cant we all get along?
    ... yeah, out of context my response looks mean and hateful, BUT when you ... did not insult that person. ... Being ignorant or something means you simply are unaware of it. ... said boring because I hear him say what he said ALL the time, ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: The philosophical Turkey: The difference between verification and
    ... response to his essay has been on my website for almost two years. ... If I am providing the references, why should I need to present ... and claims that they support a model which flatly ... Why should I need to present "relevant quotes"? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Why the BF hate? Cant we all get along?
    ... yeah, out of context my response looks mean and hateful, BUT when you ... did not insult that person. ... Being ignorant or something means you simply are unaware of it. ... said boring because I hear him say what he said ALL the time, ...
    (rec.music.artists.kiss)
  • Re: Converting Magnesium Sulphate to Magnesium Chloride?
    ... despite being given ample references and names that you ... response, being so busy pushing back the frontiers of learning, and so ... Scientific and medical orthodoxy has over the course of the growth of ... Gullible idiot and candidate for the "Darwin Award", ...
    (sci.chem)