Re: The correct definition.

"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Acnxl.18772$i9.11299@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:l%Iwl.17971$v8.6910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in news:3Eawl.17392$i9.17110
@bignews7.bellsouth.net:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ECLvl.16824$v8.1710@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Dave Oldridge wrote:
"[M]adman" <grat@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:0qzvl.16569$i9.14497@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

What should be the correct definition for evolution?

"The processes that allows life to continue despite the
conditions on the earth. These conditions allow adaptations to
take place in a linear fashion thereby allowing the original
kind to survive and have many sub-kinds that are each one
after their original kind"

There is no strong evidence supporting the idea that there was
more than one "original kind."

There was more then one kind. Science is on the wrong track
IMHO. Science has over looked something or there is something
yet to be discovered that will bring what we already know in
better focus.

In fact i see two (possibly three with the Cambrian) separate
and distinct creations. The first creation much larger and much
older with many created kinds that gave rise to others after
their own kind. These created kinds adapted as the earth changed
over the eons. Some survived the meteorite impacts, the ice
ages, and the upheavals the earth has suffered to continue the
life cycle.

Then, a second (or possibly third) creation in the garden of
Eden as described in the Hebrew bible (and other texts) which
happened much latter. This second creation marks the last eon or
earth age that we are currently in. We seem to be living during
the last part of the final eon according to some traditions. For
instance, the Myan's traditions to name but one.

Most do not want to admit these records the ancients left behind
have some truth to them. So by you clinging on to this relativly
'new' idea of evolution you only hinder science in it's
discovery of exactly what has happened in the past.

Pure bilge. Unsubstantiated opinion based mostly on a fevered
imagination. You offer no analysis whatever.

Not true. The texts substantiate and are here.

What reason is there for what is recorded to be a lie? Why would
these ancient peoples take heavy stone, sit down and carve these
stones with stories? Just to lie to you all these years latter?
Highly unlikely.

Humans tell stories. It's what we do.

Which does not mean the stories are not based on some type of truth

And that's why we need to interpret them in the light of forensic
evidence. That can help us determine what kind of truth they are
based on.

Well, i agree to a point. But forensic evidence is not always going to
be available. So do you toss the baby out with the bath water because
there is no forensic evidence available? No. You look for other ways to
prove or disprove the information.

Then there is that lingering question that no one wants to address.

WHY would they lie? Why would they bother to lie?

They weren't lying, they were telling stories.

And please do not use that tired rationalization that they did not know
they were lying because the end result is the information is wrong when
you rationalize it that way. But that is simply not the case. There is
too much of it saying the same basic things for all of it to be
inaccurate and wrong.

The liars are those who lift those stories out of all historical and
cultural context and then try to impose their misinterpretation of
prescientific stories on modern science as a dogma, never to be
contradicted by observation. The only way to characterize such behaviour
is to state that it is not sane and DEFINITELY not rational!





What we see is general evolution punctuated by some rather severe
catastrophes. The Cambrian explosion (so-called) arrived on the
heels of a planetary freeze-over. The Permian extinction
coincides with the Siberian traps vulcanism. There is a Jurassic
extinction that is not so severe as the K-T extinction that came
much later.

All the more reason that severe interuptions of the evolutionary
process stops the progress of evolution which claims it needs lots
of time. Aparantly you have had many interuptions in evolution for
evolution to be true.

It doesn't, though. It knocks out a large number of species and
then, when the environment recovers, we see a rapid evolution of
new species centered on the groups remaining after the extinction
event.

True. But it still cuts the time factor down. You need time for
divergence.

Since we have protocols that produce speciation in animals in 20
generations and (sometimes) in plants in a single generation, we
don't need much. What is needed is isolation of small subpopulations
more than time.

In all honesty. Has anyone witnessed this speciation in animals
actually happening ? What new species did it produce?

Yes, though it is far easier to observe it in rapidly reproducing species
such as the genus drosophila.

We can witness small scale evolution such as variations from wolf to
dog.

Using ruthless selection, we can start with a monoclonal pair and end up
20 generations later with two species as different from one another as
gorillas are from humans that will not voluntarily interbreed.

Taking diverging subspecies from the wild and keeping them separated,
Dobzhansky observed them to speciate completely in five years time. When
that experiment started the two variants could freely interbreed. After
five years, they could only produce sterile males if permitted to attempt
interbreeding. In other words, their genetic isolation had become
genetic.


ne preceded by a fair number
of intermediates and we arrive with genetics that demonstrate
beyond reasonable doubt our common ancestry with the other great
apes.

Reasonable doubt permeates evolutionary theory.

Nope....not in the respect of our common ancestry with the other
great apes. Your unreasonable doubts, rooted in religious dogma,
are understandable, but have no scientific standing.

That is just it. I am not basing the opinion on dogma

Of course you are. You twist every which way in the wind to deny the
obvious implications of the genetics.

You cannot define life or how that life originated and yet you lecture
me on genetics?

Life is that which absorbs materials and energy from its environment,
reproduces and evolves.

Amusing is what you are at times

Silly is what all creationist demon-worshippers are. They would rather
defend their lies all the way to the bottom of the pit than repent them.
Such is the web the devil has snared you in.



Macro-Evolution is flimsily.


Macro-evolution is far more robust than latter-day young-earth
creationism, which is contradicted by many lines of evidence.

Not really.

Yes, really....in spite of all your attempts to lie about it.



Common design could also be what you are observing instead.

If human and ape were isolated with their genetic similarities
then you would have a point. But they are not. You can find many
species that are unrelated with genetic similarities

1. Ultimately there are no unrelated species.
2. Your claim of a common designer would preclude that designer
being actually intelligent, since the pattern we see is very
inefficient.

A fantasy omnipotent designer could be blamed for everything, but
evolution actually explains what we see in terms of what we see,
not some imaginary pagan godlet that makes stupid mistakes (or is
utterly malicious).


The creation was corrupted. What you are viewing is not the original
design thanks to your pops

So the evil demi-god is the creator of species, according to you?

He has made some counterfits. But the real problem is the original
designs have been corrupted.

The real problem is that YOU have been corrupted--induced to hand your
reason over to the Evil One in echange for a false sense of security and
a puerile ego-troking.




We Christians don't believe in your pagan deities.

You are a counterfit christian. And that clock is ticking

YOU are a counterfeit, sir, and your clock has nearly run
out.

Go to hell if you want. It's your RIIIIIGHT!

We have been through this Dave. Why do you resist the chosen ones?

You aren't in communion with heaven, son. That is manifest in your
demon-inspired behaviour.


Don't you know that every knee will bow to YHWH when the truth is
unfolded?

You haven't bowed the knee to YHWH. I doubt you even know how to begin
at this stage of your spiritual career. What you do is pay lip service
while ACTUALLY bowing the knee to the father of all lies.

You cannot fool me with your stupid argumentum ad baculum fallacies. I
know better than to believe them.


--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Paper: A critique of directionality theory
    ... Directionality theory suggests that demographic entropy, ... equilibrium species and decrease in opportunistic species. ... been applied to explain the evolution of body size and of senescence. ... is the appropriate tool in the study of life history evolution. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: SETI
    ... There was absolutley nothing inevitable about our evolution. ... Millions of species, none as intelligent as we are. ... histories of sociality, the combination of a few elements in animal ... Earthlike when life first evolved, and that life in fact has played a ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christmas hypocrites"
    ... It was his suggestion that the entire diversity of life on Earth could be explained by these slow processes, in the same way the topography of mountains and valleys could be explained by the long accumulation of slow processes, that turned biology on its head. ... Evolution can explain why birds on a island where long beaks are advantageous evolve into long-beaked birds, it doesn't explain how an amoeba transforms into an ape. ... Now that we have a theory to explain how species adapt to their environments we have decided that everything "spiritual" is pure superstition. ... you can actually trace how far apart organisms are in evolution by looking at how similar certain genes are. ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
  • Re: Its Gumby Damnit!
    ... I've read many many articles and journals explaining the evidence ... I accept many many facets of the natural evolution "database". ... neutral perspective would see that the similiar ingredients for life, ... genes and structures for species in various environments. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The universe looks designed to me
    ... and you'll have the ratio of new species to ... The time life originated? ... >> the pace of that evolution is subject to considerable debate. ... Then the designer says "OOPS" and jury-rigs ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading