Re: Evolution Deniers


"Mark VandeWettering" <wettering@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:slrndq45o8.13fm.wettering@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On 2005-12-16, al <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:Spgof.4880$nm.2532@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> "al" <almond@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >> news:dns0a7$don$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> snipping
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> When you have an argument which does not display your fundamental
> >> >> ignorance and sloppiness in checking your information, please try
> >> >> again. As it is, you are making yourself appear foolish.

We will see about that
> >> >>
> >> >> RF
> >> > Yes, the palaeontologists failed to consider that the bones they were
> >> >> finding in Australia were swept there from Australia!
> >> >
> >> > As you well know, I was referring to the non-arctic region as it is
> >> > supposed
> >> > that Australia was joined to Antarctica at the time of the dinosaurs.

As I recall the Dino Cove area is where the two continents were joined.
> >> >
> >> > Yes RF, I made a mistake there.
> >> > And the truth is out - I'm not a computer from the planet Zog.

The mistake was about clarity and anyone with a modicum of common sense
would have realised that.
> >>
> >> No one was going to make that mistake... What mistake?
> >>
> >>
> >> > Much of what I write is from memory and unlike yours, it's original
and
> >> > not
> >> > conveniently archived.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you should not rely on your memory, and use more archives
sources
> > of
> >> information. You'd be more likely to be correct.

Please point out my incorrectness. I have posted several updates on this.
> >>
> >>
> >> > But the fact remains ( in spite of your mealy mouthed reply) that the
> >> > basis
> >> > of the argument is intact and relatively true.
> >>
> >> How? The basis for the argument was wrong, so the argument itself is
> >> wrong. What argument?

Lets have some clarity here. My argument was wrong about what?
> >>
> >> > ( There are no answers - just choices).
> >> > Science reminds me of the "Wizard of Oz", ( not at Dino Cove ) give
the
> >> > big
> >> > machine a kick and the frightened little guy comes out from behind.
> >>
> >> Are you basing your dislike of science on your own experience, or
because
> >> you don't understand it?
My dislike of science started with the Velikovsky affair.
If the astronomers had kept stum, the whole thing would have been forgotten
and Dr. V would have been relegated to the archives of pseudo-science. As it
was they had to try to destroy the guy.
> >> >
> >> > Now, the question is: are you going to address the issues that I have
> >> > raised
> >> > or are you going to persist with ad hominem replies?
> >> > Is evolution based on consensus opinion?
> >>
> >> No, it's based on the evidence. Scientists base their opinions on the
> >> evidence, and the consensus is the evidence fully supports evolution.

I think that there is a grammatical error there but no matter. *Refer to my
marks out of ten and see me Griffith.*
But Wistar proves the contrary, in that many biologists with the highest
qualifications say not.
> >>
> >> > Are other sciences based on the same?
> >>
> >> No, they aren't based on opinion either.
How about the fact that galaxies do not conform to the gravitational theory
in their rotation?
And that pulsars do not conform to physics theory, even though physicists
use pulsars as proof of their theories. A bit of a circular argument would
you say?
And plate tectonics is a random process and yet the continents can be
returned to the supercontinent position by moving them in a straight line?
> >>
> >> > Where did the first cell get its genetic material from?
> >>
> >> From the self replicating genetic material that already existed, most
> >> likely. Self replicating RNA probably preceded cells.

When I was young and foolish I used to read the works of Isaac Asimov and
one of the tricks he used was to bring large numbers into perspective by
making a key number unity. For example: the solar system has distances that
are mind boggling for the non-scientific. What he did was to call the earth
sun distance one, and then the rest were small numbers.
What I did was to do the same thing for evolution. Imagine the first
cell/entity, just one; where did it get it's genetic material from? I find
that all suggestion of mutation and vertical/horizontal and other transfer
are inadequate, according to posters on the n g and by consulting the works
of Hoyle ( who has been criticised for not being a biologist, but Wegener
was not a geologist and for the benefit of our friend, Jesus and his
disciples never went to theological college). I asked our mathematician
friend to examine the works of Hoyle and tell me where he was wrong. I'm
still waiting. (Yes this is a sentence).
> >>
> >> > Is it possible that viruses drive evolution?
> >>
> >> Viruses probably play a part in evolution, but mutations are more
likely
> > to
> >> be the engine that drives evolution.

Oh right. If mutation will not work for the first cell then why would it
work for the rest?
> >>
> >> > What are your objections to the Wistar page?
> >>
> >> It's based on outdated and irrelevant material.
> >>
> >> > It's a group of people who
> >> > object to the way that evolution is presented.
> >>
> >> They are free to object, but until they produce some evidence, they
aren't
> >> going to be listened to.
> >>
> >> > I have had only one rebuttal
> >> > and that was to say that what was said was true and the person
regrets
> >> > that
> >> > his statement was recorded.
> >>
> >> Citation, please.

I suggest that all who read this will also read Wistar as it represents
hundreds of biologists who disagree with the evolutionary paradigm. What is
bizarre is that most of them are not in any way creationists. I realise that
this is an American thing, but accusing me of *giving succour to the enemy*
is even more outlandish to people in other countries.
> >>
> >> > I realise that all this is embarrassing, but life's a bitch. But if
> >> > evolution is as strong as you suggest then you can answer their
> > criticisms
> >>
> >> Their "criticisms" amount to "it's so complex, it couldn't have
happened".
> >> This is merely argument from incredulity.
> >>
> >>
> >> DJT
> >
> > Hi Dana
> > I don't think that is quite true -
> >
> > Wistar - A few extracts from the conferences
> >
> >
> >
> > An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a
> > creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopaedia is
> > based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.
> >
> > I like this one best
> >
> > It was decided that no record would be kept of the sessions, in order
not to
> > give ammunition to the creationists. The rapid accumulation of evidence
> > against evolutionary theory had brought a crisis of such proportions
that
> > most of those in attendance decided to repudiate a cardinal Darwinian
> > doctrine; they agreed that small changes from generation to generation
> > within a species could never accumulate to produce a new species.
> >
> > Victor Weisskopf, who is a professor at Massachusetts Institute of
> > Technology (MIT) and one of the original Los Alamos atomic bomb group,
at
> > his house in Geneva. `A rather weird discussion' took place. The subject
was
> > evolution by natural selection. The mathematicians were stunned by the
> > optimism of the evolutionists about what could be achieved by chance. So
> > wide was the rift that they decided to organize a conference, which was
> > called Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution.
> >
> > These objections to current neo-Darwinian theory are very widely held
among
> > biologists generally; and we must on no account, I think, make light of
> > them."-*Peter Medawar, remarks by the chairman, *Paul Moorhead and
*Martin
> > Kaplan (ed.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian
Interpretation of
> > Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5.
> >
> > A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke
at
> > that 1966 Wistar Institute. They clearly refuted neo-Darwinianism in
several
> > areas, and showed that its "fitness" and "adaptation" theories were
> > tautologous-little more than circular reasoning. In contrast, some of
the
> > biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. They
> > understood bugs and turtles, but could grasp neither the mathematical
> > impossibilities of evolutionary theory nor the broad picture of how
> > thoroughly defunct evolution really is.
> >
> > For four days the Wistar convention continued, during which a key
lecture
> > was delivered by *M.P. Schutzenberger, a computer scientist, who
explained
> > that computers are large enough now to totally work out the mathematical
> > probabilities of evolutionary theory-and they demonstrate that it is
really
> > fiction.
> >
> > *Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single
ordered
> > pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E.
coli,-with
> > 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5
trillion
> > tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch
during
> > that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli
contain
> > over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by
12
> > zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein
forming
> > by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic
> > data on haemoglobin (red blood cells).
> >
> > "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant
minority
> > of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to
> > accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of
biologists
> > who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically
endless.
> > When Arthur Koestler organized the Alpbach Symposium, in 1969, called
> > `Beyond Reductionism,' for the express purpose of bringing together
> > biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism he was able to include in the
list
> > of participants many authorities of world stature, such as Swedish
> > neurobiologist, Holgar Hyden; zoologists, Paul Weiss and W.H. Thorpe;
> > linguist, David McNeil; and child psychologist, Jean Piaget. Koestler
had
> > this to say in his opening remarks: `. . invitations were confined to
> > personalities in academic life, with undisputed authority in their
> > respective fields, who nevertheless share that holy discontent.
> >
> > "To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because
chemists
> > have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation
of
> > life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened .
..
> > Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of
> > creation."-*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe
(1981),
> > p. 19.
> >
> > Of the scientists attending that meeting, some in desperation decided
that
> > the only solution was to join *Gould and *Stanley in viewing hopeful
> > monsters as the means by which species change occurred! To coin a phrase
> > that might be worthy of Shakespeare: "Ah, desperation, thou hast made
men
> > mad."
>
> So, you really aren't prepared to discuss WISTAR, you are just going to
> plagiarize what you "think" from creationist quotemines.
>
> Wow. How surprising. Oh, no wait. The other thing. Expected.
>
> When you actually want to discuss what Murray Eden said at WISTAR and why
> it's irrelevant, we'll be here.

> *Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered
pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,-with
5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion
tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during
that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain
over a trillion (1012) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12
zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming
by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic
data on haemoglobin (red blood cells).

Ok, lets hear what he said after he was told he would lose his job if he did
not retract his statement?

Plagiarism is stealing and both me and your friend have made it quite plain
that all Wistar is thanks to -
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/20hist12.htm

al
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help with Interview
    ... >>> origins of life, as stated in accepted theory is impossible. ... As can be seen the opposition to Darwinistic evolution is not ... > A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at ... > biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... Scientists base their opinions on the ... and the consensus is the evidence fully supports evolution. ... > A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, ... > biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Evolution Deniers
    ... and the consensus is the evidence fully supports evolution. ... >>> What are your objections to the Wistar page? ... > A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at ... > biologists who spoke at the convention could not see the light. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions, please.
    ... Evolution conference in Chicago in the 80s. ... I once had the chance to skim through the Wistar proceedings. ... had their conclusions eviscerated by the biologists, ... mathematicians, in general, ended up admitting that they were wrong. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions, please.
    ... Evolution conference in Chicago in the 80s. ... I once had the chance to skim through the Wistar proceedings. ... had their conclusions eviscerated by the biologists, ... Please provide references that there was indeed a consensus amongst mathematicians ...
    (talk.origins)