Re: Kerry voters and Evolution ...

Lone Victor wrote:
> "Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Beauchamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Mmm hmmm....forgive me for incorrectly expecting intelligent
>> discourse idiot. Antibiotic resistent bacteria? Yep. Ever thought
>> for a moment that micro-evolution and macro-evolution are birds of
>> complete different feathers and where the argument actually lies?
>> (heh no pun intended).
>
> Did it every occur to you that part of the same process?
>
> You claimed that evolution was not observable, and then you complain
> when I point out a perfectly good example of evolution that most
> definitely *is* observable. It's a good example, because it can be
> observed within the human lifespan. But you insist on trying to
> weasel out of it by ignoring what you *wrote* ("evolution") and
> replacing it with "macro-evolution".
>

You just like to argue dood. I am not weasling out of anything. I
clarified what I was speaking about....exactly the same way I clarify my
point on this matter every flipping time it comes up. Your shrillness is
exactly proof of what I have been saying. Your side will screech and insist
that you are science and that my side is not...but you do not provide
anything that indicates anything other then.....you have accepted a paradigm
and will defend it regardless.

> OK, I'll give you "macro-evolution": Most mammals can make their own
> vitamin C, but not jungle dwelling primates. Evolution explains this
> because their diet is high in C, thus the accidental inactivation of
> the gene that coded for the enzyme that produces C did not reduce
> their fitness. Guess what?: all primates share the same deactivated
> gene, and the stop codon that deactivates it occurs in exactly the
> same location in all primates.
>

Evolution did not explain anything. A person concocted an explanation to
fill a hole in the argument in favor of evolution and then claims it as
evidence. The fans of Intelligent Design would look at you and say common
designer...common result in primates explains exactly the same thing equally
well.


> Now stop and think for a minute. Does your "Intelligent Design"
> explain this fact? Are you going to dismiss this as
> "micro-evolution"?
>

Heh. See what I mean? And it is not my Intelligent Design. I am of the
mid that Intelligent Design is just a cop out way of saying Creation while
pretending that one is not really talking about God and
well....usually...Genesis.


>>> Evolution is no more valid scientifically then the idea of a
>>> Creator.
> This shows your total ignorance of what makes up Science.
>
> Science values theories like Evolution because of their explanatory
> value and economy of ideas. Your need for vitamin C is explained by
> evolution through the accumulation of small changes, "fitness", and
> the common ancestry of primates. (Please note that your previous
> distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is now totally
> worthless.)
>

Science values nothing. Atheists value evolution because they can pretend
there is no God. End of story there. Since you like it so much you will
cling to it and insist on it no matter what. I see no difference there then
what fanatics of any religion display.


> Now take this a step further. What do these two "competing theories"
> (in your dreams) tell us about other animals? Well, evolution
> predicts that if we find other mammals that require vitamin C, it
> should be ones that get plenty of it in their diet. It turns out
> there is one: the guinea pig. Yep! Plenty of C in its natural diet.
> And the mammalian C enzyme? Yep, it's there, and deactivated. BUT,
> deactivated by a different mechanism than primates. Why? Guinea pigs
> and Primates share a distant ancestor (same mammalian C gene), but do
> not share an ancestor since they lost the C gene.
>

Mmm hmmm... a giant massive leap of faith you must take there (distant
ancestor) laden with assumption (namely a process that would get something
from there to well..primates and guinea pigs)....a series of intermediate
changes would have to be well documented...(there have never been any
observed..there are none to be found) and in fact would be the vast majority
of the fossil record.

>> Mmm hmmm....forgive me for incorrectly expecting intelligent
>> discourse idiot.
>
> OK. Show me intelligent discourse. Fill in the Creationists
> explanation for the above facts. Show us what biology teachers are
> supposed to do with the time taken out of their class for Intelligent
> Design. Here, you can use this space:
>

You are simply proving my point. You have an arrogant perspective that says
there is no debate (this is wrong...obviously....and duh..observably or
there would not be..well...the argument happening daily accross the
country).

There is no such thing as transitional species. None have been found. They
should overwhelmingly be representative in the fossil record. Mutations
generally do not reproduce on any large scale. That is clearly observable.
There is no need to explain your vitamin C silliness through evolution when
a common designer, namely God obviously made primates and guinea pigs. And
he made several varieties of each...some no longer living. That takes a lot
less faith to believ and is just as observable as your notion of an assumed
common ancestor with no real way of knowing such a thing...but you state it
as fact. Therein lies a large chunk of problem. That is NOT science. That
is blind faith. And incredibly arrogant stupid faith to boot.

>
> [that should be enough.]
>
> Creationism is totally unscientific because it doesn't explain
> anything.

That just proves you do not know anything about Creation beyond what your
fellow atheists claim about it. (Here is the part where you get to howl at
me about how you have read the Bible).


> It's just an old fable that you were taught as a child, and should
> have outgrown, like the Tooth Fairy.
>

Mmm...hmmm...and you have a monkey for an uncle and look pretty stupid
believing that.

> Maybe this book will help you
> <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591022177/qid=1124680835/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-3141440-3788659?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>
>
> http://shorterlink.com/?MB9FZ8
>
>
>
>
>
> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.usenet.com

--
v/r Beau


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... I was going to go to hell for believing in science. ... You mean to say, evolution. ... Somebody should explain this to most of the primates. ... Dave Oldridge+ ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Paper: Expression profiling in primates reveals a rapid evolution of human transcription factors
    ... Expression profiling in primates reveals a rapid evolution of human ... adaptations are likely to be due to changes in gene regulation1, ... Most of those primates eat raw fruits and vegetables. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... I was going to go to hell for believing in science. ... You mean to say, evolution. ... Somebody should explain this to most of the primates. ... Dave Oldridge+ ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: A few questions from an Anthro student
    ... I was going to go to hell for believing in science. ... You mean to say, evolution. ... Somebody should explain this to most of the primates. ... American can study evolution, since we all don't believe in it. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Activist judge declares that Intelligent Design is not science
    ... Phillip Johnson is known as the father of intelligent design. ... The idea in its current form appeared in the 1980s, and Johnson adopted and developed it after Darwinian evolution came up short, in his view, in explaining how all organisms, including humans, came into being. ... In this interview, hear why he feels that such evidence is "somewhere between weak and nonexistent," why he feels intelligent design is a testable science, and why he thought the Dover trial was a train wreck waiting to happen. ...
    (alt.politics)