Re: NashtyOne


Nashton wrote:
Thurisaz the Einherjer wrote:
Tiktaalik:

Can anyone tell me what exactly is a NashtOn ? I would really love to
know.

A standard fundie. I. e. take any human, remove her brain, fill the void
with babble pages, presto - a nutty!


There is really no accounting for class.

I'll that that to mean your quotes below.


In this thread is the main corps of the evo-goons. I choose to not
killfile them for entertainment value, the lurkers can do as they please.

Have you just morphed your own ID?

If these evo-Jihadists aren't a sign of exactly how there beloved ToE is
fragile, I don't know what is.

There is a fact. You don't know a thing about evolution. Fact.
Months ago I suggested a number of papers available without
more than a mouse click, and what have you done to educate
yourself? Nothing. I'm still ready to discuss those papers and
any others easily made available but you have to do some work
to understand them first, don't you?

Tell me this, Nashton - if evolution really is somehow *wrong*, then
which of the several major religions and hundreds of denominations
is actually right? They might all be wrong, too. There is a real basic
problem in saying that all of them are right but that science is wrong
so you really need to explain here and now which one is the one
true answer to the origin of this world and of life on it. Would the
Pope in Rome have the answer? Is it some guy on early morning
TV (who is having an affair with his secretary)? Should I have
listened more closely to Rev. Moon that time I was at Madison
Square Garden back in the 70's? What about the Dreamtime that
native Australians tell us about? If geology, molecular biology,
comparative genomics and all of evolutionary biology are wrong,
then who is right? There are some errors in science in the ways
that raw data is explained here and there, and there are a few
cases of data just being made up (but that does tend to get caught
and when it does, it completely kills the career of the offender and
possibly some who he has lied to), but for the most part science is
providing a clear set of steps that explain how life has moved from
one level of evolution to another. Perhaps what you are overlooking
is that the work science is doing is a work in progress. Take an
idea like "horizontal gene transfer", which was suggested as a way
to explain some groups of genes that appeared in a few groups of
species and also in some quite distant species but nowhere between
those species. A paper I was reading the other day (I'm happy to
cite the reference if you ask in reply, but only if you are interested)
suggests that gene loss has occurred in the same groups of genes
a number of times across vertebrate evolution over the 600 or so
million years it has taken vertebrates to evolve and that this rather
than HGT may account for the pattern of where these genes are
found. (Lurkers and others can find this paper as # 16723033 in the
PubMed database... Blomme et al, Genome Biology epub May 24)
So, the ideas we have about movement of genes versus deletion of
genes in between two species is an example of one of the many
areas that biology as a field is working to resolve, but you really do
need to tell me how this process is wrong and how the faith that
a rainbow serpent or an unknown god (or even Jesus H. Christ) was
able to create the whole world and all of life on it in every way is
absolutely correct. Did you know that some neurobiologists feel
evolution explains what the neurological perception of faith is about?

I'll paste that quote I suggested for you to use below again, and
you should read it carefully and with an open mind, if possible.
The fact that every sensation and thought you are able to feel
is a function of neurobiology and not of outside forces is one
feature of biology that you and your church will just have to
learn to live with if you want to find your way forward. Perhaps
if the AI people can take this on board, we can wire the fear of
God into computer systems of the future. On the other hand we
would have a set of mutations that explains the G.O.P. and the
creationists and other right-wing loons.

(signed) marc

"Siding with evolution does not really pose a serious problem
for many deeply religious people, because one can easily
accept evolution without doubting the existence of a non-material
being. On the other hand, the truly radical and still maturing view
in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product
of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions."
Kenneth S. Kosik (Nature vol 439, p138)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To the real anthropologists (you know who you are)
    ... genes are marked off, ... can't define the term "species," and couldn't if their asses ... interests in human evolution. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: To the real anthropologists (you know who you are)
    ... genes are marked off, ... can't define the term "species," and couldn't if their asses ... Evolution - and what it has COME to symbolize in action and deeds, ... is ALSO subject to religious-type dogma - via ideologies. ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: Is my CS instructor nuts?
    ... species, homo sapiens sapiens, there are "innate" differences which are ... even those biology texts which don't address the issue, ... contain a single species entry for all humans alive today. ... rather than the science of evolution. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Absence of Canines in Apiths
    ... There is no evolutionary biology associated ... >> pathways for species to invade. ... It's taboo to them. ... evolution is a process that is distinct from biological evolution and that ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Ernst Mayr
    ... Ernst Mayr, the last of the people to have participated in the Modern ... Synthesis and perhaps the greatest evolutionary biology of the 20th ... revived Darwin's theories of evolution and reconciled them with new ... question of how new species originate. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)