Re: Fallacy of Biological Evolution
- From: richardalanforrest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 04:52:08 -0700
On Jun 3, 6:37 am, "Apostle of One Mighty and Strong"
<minis...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Duwaynea Anderson" <DuwayneAnder...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1180453795.649630.137120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 29, 8:37 am, "Jong Kim" <r...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was
wrong. What do you do, sir?
An admirable approach. So, since evolution of species is an observed
fact, may I assume you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
Your lie is unacceptable.
No lie, just fact. Here's a refernce to observed speciation and
evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
So, since evolution of species is an observed fact, may I assume
you've now changed your mind and accept the fact?
So-called speciation by hybridization is no speciation at all.
The biologists who have studied the subject disagree with you.
If you think this is the case, please provide evidence and argument to
justify this assertion. If you can't - and we all know that you can't
- it is nothing more than an unfounded assertion.
Why should anyone take the unfounded assertions of someone evidently
ignorant of biology seriously when it come to biological science?
If a
speciation occurs for an isolated variety, only then can you justifiably say
one instance of biological change (if not evolution, which word implies
improvement or enhancement of some kind,
No, it doesn't. It implies changes which are passed down through
generations within a population.
judging by certain criteria for
what are better characteristics
No, it is a consequence of the reproductive sucess of individuals in a
population bearing genes which confer a selective advantage in respect
of the environment in which they are living.
) has been observed. Hybridization induced by
man's meddling or by wind or by bees, etc. due to proximities of two
different species breeding obviously ought to be left out when discussing
speciation,
Why? It is speciation whether humans are involved or not. What matters
is the result, which it two populations whose capacity to interbreed
is low or non-existent.
which has never been observed to occur naturally in genetic
isolation
An outright falsehood. There are many instances of this reported in
scientific journals.
(all occurrences of speciation are due to direct interferences of
the Lord God of heaven and earth, such as what happened to the serpent in
the garden of Eden and the coming forth of weeds, etc. due to the Almighty's
curses upon the earth, as explained by Brigham Young).
An unfounded assertion which is impossible to investigate using the
tools of science. Believe it if you want, but don't expect your
beliefs to be taken seriously as science.
Take for instance,
the animal kingdom, in which there's no possibility of anything like wind
pollination for Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences
of speciation.
There are instance of observed speciation, so it doesn't require any
twisting of language to say that it has occurred.
James Clerk Maxwell (1867 letter to a fellow physicist, Peter Guthrie Tait,
also an expert in themodynamics):
What possible relevance are the views of a 19th century physicist to
21st century biology?
"The value of the metaphysics is equal to the mathematical and physical
knowledge of the author divided by his confidence in reasoning from
the names of things."http://www.hypercomplex.com/education/intro_tutorial/nabla.html
Maxwell, like Tait, didn't have much of a stomach for the kind of
metaphysics that came from non-scientists, which often seemed
to consist of nothing but a vacuous play on words.
Much as is the case with creationist metaphysics.
Your point?
[end of excerpt]
I understand that field biology has little to do with metaphysics,
Well whopedee doo!
at least
upon immediate consideration, but you see my point, if you are honest.
(You have not been honest thus far in this thread but mostly wasting
my time.)
I fail to see that you are making any point whatsover.
Speaking of field biology, has a female tiger ever been observed to produce,
after having mated within her species, a liger or a lion or any other type
of cat?
No, and if this occured it would falsify most elements of evolutionary
theory.
Your point?
Does it scientifically make any sense that this could be a
possibility at all?
In a wierd sort of a way, as such an event would falsify evolutionary
theory. In science one has to consider the possiblity that even the
most unlikely events might occur.
I ask you this question, especially because in the
animal kingdom, there's no possibility of anything like wind pollination for
Evolutionists to twist language into imaginary occurrences of speciation.
Your point? We have plenty of evidence which does not rely on wind
pollination or anything like it for speciation events.
Herbert Spencer, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, these aren't genuine
scientists.
Herbert Spencer wasn't. He was a political theorist.
Charles Darwin was, and is considered by many, especially scientists,
to be the most important and influential scientist of the 19th
century. What do you know that all those scientists don't?
Richard Dawkins contribution has been largely as a communicator fof
scientific concepts than original research, so I suppose you could
argue that he's not a practising scientist.
Just advocates of a false ideology, anti-Christs all.
Science is not ideology.
There were
and are (esp. in the past) true biologists, true natural philosophers all,
but these three are confirmed charlatans.
Another unfounded assertion.
Do you think that for 150 years all biologists have been taken in by
the work of a charlatan? If so, perhaps you could produce evidence for
such chicanery on Darwin's part.
Do you think scientists are as stupid and gullible as creationists?
(Having just learned a little bit
about Tait, that he was not a really spiritual minded scientist, I wouldn't
be surprised if he sustained Evolution in spite of his knowledge of
thermodynamics.
What on earth has thermodynamics to do with evolutionary theory?
Surely you haven't been conned by the facile assertion that evolution
contradicts the laws of thermodynamics? Even AiG has listed that as an
argument creationists shouldn't use.
But, I have shown in correspondences with Redtrollnames that
Maxwell did not. The point though, is that it's not who says it but what is
said, whether facts and objective reasoning are given by a presenter of any
view, scientific or otherwise.
Totally incoherent. Is gibberish your first language?
Of course, true religion encompasses all
branches of science, in fact all of life itself.
Few scientists would agree with you, even those of a religious
disposition.
Even if Maxwell did support
Evolution, that doesn't make it true.
No, makes it completely and utterly irrelevant.
It so happens that Maxwell himself
rejected Evolution (though not very vocal about it),
Well bully for Maxwell.
Your point?
and I have totally
demonstrated this,
You have demonstrated nothing except ignorance and an ability to make
unfounded assertions.
so if you want to judge by subjective credibility
suggested by any 'brand name', I offer you the name of the ultra competent
James Clerk Maxwell,
A physicist who died in 1879.
Why should I accept the views of a long-dead physicist in respect of
evolution rather than that presented by modern science?
if somehow the sanctified names of Joseph Smith and
Brigham Young and Art Bulla aren't enough for your appetite.)
I consider those persons to be little more than successful con-men.
http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/James_Clerk_Maxwell
Clerk Maxwell ... yet showed on fit occasion his contempt for that
pseudo-science which seeks for the applause of the ignorant by professing to
reduce the whole system of the universe to a fortuitous sequence of uncaused
events.
The LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia is based on what many consider to be
the best encyclopedia ever written: the eleventh edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, first published in 1911.http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/LoveToKnow_1911:About
I think that you will find that most people consider the 1911
Encyclopedia Britannica to be somewhat out-of-date in respect of
modern science.
In your talk.origins web link, there's a section titled "5.2 Speciations in
Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy". That's only two
examples, and neither is in any way valid, again bogus. The first example is
one where there already existed two different but closely related species in
a given area. In the second example, some degree of hybridization occurred
anyway. Again, nonsense.
Why?
Btw genetic changes caused by exposure to x-rays and by any other such
artificial or unnatural means, or mutation as it is called, are generally
for the worse for the affected organism
But not in all cases.
and besides, such changes are not
isolated biological changes.
No, they are changes which affect the phenotype of the organism
involved which may lead to morphological or biochemical changes in
populations.
Where there's an effect, there was a cause for
it. There's no such thing as genetically isolated biological change, neither
to any individual organism (other than the process of aging) nor to the
offspring thereof.
What on earth is a "genetically isolated biological change"? The term
makes no sense.
If you don't believe the Biblical account, at least no
human being has ever detected any such biological change, or phylogeny or
evolution.
The scientists who have studied the subject disagree with you. What do
you know that they don't?
There are plenty of false or apostate religious sects, too many
to count, but the Bible and the Book of Mormon are true accounts and Art
Bulla is the One Mighty and Strong prophesied therein, and these things and
other appropriate things (i.e., not to tempt God) you may inquire for
yourself through independent, objective reflections and unfeigned humility
and sincere prayers of faith to the Father in the name of Messiah.
Well, bully for you.
What on earth has this to do with science?
By the way, there are plenty of people who do not share your beliefs
and hold equally strong, but complelety contradictory beliefs.
How do you think you can find out which is true?
When I find facts, I change my mind, if previously I was wrong. What do you
do, sir?
John Maynard Keynes:
If you're a creationist, you ignore them and pretend that they don't
exist.
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?
16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the
potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not?
or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no
understanding?
(Old Testament | Isaiah 29:16)
19 ... Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt
not sow thy field with mingled seed: ...
(Old Testament | Leviticus 19:19)
--
Jong Kim
RF
.
- References:
- Fallacy of Biological Evolution
- From: Apostle of One Mighty and Strong
- Fallacy of Biological Evolution
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Natural Selection the mechanism of Evolution?
- Next by Date: Re: MOON MADE OF CHEESE
- Previous by thread: Re: Fallacy of Biological Evolution
- Next by thread: Re: Fallacy of Biological Evolution
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
