From: dene on 3 Aug 2010 12:53
"Howard Brazee" <howard(a)brazee.net> wrote in message
> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:28:49 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
> >Something from nothing, randomly colliding into life, surviving, and then
> >becoming more complex sans design, is more magical thinking than a
> >creative being.
> >Why 10 fingers instead of 8? Why do we have hair? Why not eyes in the
> >of our heads? If survival is the basis for evolutionary change, then it
> >would seem we should have the eyesight of a fly.
> >Thousands of design questions but no answers within the laboratory or the
> >fossil record. Just theory with a lot of magical assumptions.
> Natural selection results in "good enough".
> On the other hand, creationism results in "exactly what god wanted".
> Obviously "good enough" could be improved. That's why we have
> physicians and eye glasses. But "exactly what god wanted" implies
> our design is perfect and eyes on the back of our heads would be less
If creationism is looked at from a Judeo/Christian perspective, then you
have to consider original design and then the aftermath of angelic, then
human rebellion....which goes on to this day. This is why I have no problem
believing in natural selection and evolution within a species.
From: Alan Baker on 3 Aug 2010 14:23
In article <8bpsfpFe57U2(a)mid.individual.net>,
"dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> "Don Kirkman" <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote in message
> > >Is there a record of any successful mutations, alive and able to
> > >today?
> > You may have missed it, but a lot of medications have become
> > ineffective because the bacteria or viruses they were used against
> > developed resistance against the drugs, rendering them less effective
> > or even useless. Those bacteria and viruses reproduce today.
> Ok....but do you have any examples a little higher up the chain.
So you admit that mutation is happening in bacteria -- which have
precisely the same DNA basis for the genetic information as higher
lifeforms -- but you still want to pretend it's not happening with other
Hint: the speed of evolution in a particular species is very dependent
on the speed at which it reproduces. Bacteria produce new generations
every few hours. That is why it is possible to observe their evolution
in comparison to many mammals who reproduce one a year.
Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate
population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster
growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population
But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened
in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the
ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium
that E. coli normally cannot use.
Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which
bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The
citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.
"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This
was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what
was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes
it especially interesting," says Lenski."
There. *THAT* is evolution observed in the lab, simply and unequivocally.
> > You may have missed the mutations among humans that produced different
> > hair and skin color, different amounts of hair, different skull and
> > facial features during the last 100 millennia or less (mutations
> > within species). Last I heard humans were alive and reproducing
> > around the world.
> Key word is "mutations within a species." No argument from me.
And when enough mutations have accumulated, it is no longer the same
> > You may have missed Darwin's seminal work on how different species or
> > subspecies of finches evolved on some Chilean islands. Last time
> > anybody visited the islands the finches were still there, and still
> > different on different islands.
> Again...mutations within a species.
> > It's already been pointed out to you how many species there are even
> > on the hominid tree alone. And I've already argued that we simply
> > have no idea how many species there may have been over the eons or
> > what proportion of them left fossils that have been discovered and
> > described, so we can't know how abundant they should be.
> But do you have any idea what hominids were prior to the two legged
> versions? There should be a snapshot in the fossil record. It's not like
> the mutated species was around for 50 years, then disappeared. There should
> be more fossils of them than there are of the species it evolved to.
Do you have any idea how long ago that was?
> > >> And astrophysicists are making truly astounding discoveries about the
> > >> events of the last 13.75 �0.17 billion years, ranging from the
> > >> unimaginably small to the biggest bang of them all.
> > >
> > >I have no problem accepting the idea of an ancient earth and even more
> > >ancient universe. Perhaps, by design, it was born out of an explosion.
> > Perhaps, but it's only speculation. The fact of the explosion and the
> > resultant universes seems to be pretty well supported.
> For now....
Vancouver, British Columbia
From: Dene on 3 Aug 2010 17:26
On Aug 2, 8:21 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 20:08:58 -0700, dene wrote:
> > "Carbon" <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:51:44 -0700, dene wrote:
> >>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> On Aug 2, 5:33 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> >>>> "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18ae96af-
> >>>> e4b9-4bd3-838d-6b74c67da...(a)w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Aug
> >>>> 2, 3:00 pm, "dene" <d...(a)remove.ipns.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Alan Baker" <alangba...(a)telus.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> No life has ever been created on earth? What does that mean?
> >>>>> Not since the beginning. Reproduction...yes. But organic life
> >>>>> resulting from the right mix of matter....no.
> >>>> Are you saying that every species on earth today has always been
> >>>> here?
> >>> I think there were different timelines. Obviously dinosaurs
> >>> preceded mankind. It's just odd to me that the religion of science
> >>> cannot answer why no new life is manifesting itself, even though
> >>> conditions are ripe for it.
> >> To claim that science is a religion is to misunderstand the basic
> >> principle of science. You observe. You theorize. You test. The best
> >> science wins.
> >> ID is creationism gone to night school. There is a reason that the
> >> vast majority of scientists don't take it seriously. There's no
> >> rigor. It's just a bunch of unprovable assertions.
> > Fine. I'm awaiting your answers to my questions.
> About the timelines arguments?Speciationsounds more compelling (less
> magical) to me.
1. Something from nothing?
2. Simple goo to complex organism? How....when everything in the
decays unless there is maintenance.
3. The design of our bodies. If survival of the fittest rules, then
doesn't mankind run on 4 legs, with two or more arms, dozens of
the eyesight of an eagle.
4. Why aren't new life forms being ooozed, albeit in the wild or in
> Also, I'm not saying that what you believe is bad. I suppose it would be
> nice to be able to believe there was some god who knew and cared about
> us. But it's much more likely that we arrived where we are by chance,
> that there is no kindly old man, that our lives have very little
> inherent meaning, et cetera. I am fine that most people would prefer to
> believe something more soothing. But myself, how I can not believe what
> is most likely to be the truth?
I appreciate your respect, which is why I enjoy discussing matters
From: Howard Brazee on 3 Aug 2010 17:46
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:17:43 -0700, "dene" <dene(a)remove.ipns.com>
>It is not easy to find physical evidence. The transcending mutatations
>fossils between species should far outweigh the fossils for existing or
>extinct species. Yet there is virtually nothing in the fossil record.
>There is evolution within species....the evidence....but not from one
>species to another.
That's because every time we see an animal that's a "missing link"
people say that it doesn't count. I guess we have two missing links
So what would you accept as evidence of a transcending mutation
fossil? One that is changing comic-book style as we look at it?
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
From: Don Kirkman on 3 Aug 2010 18:25
On Tue, 03 Aug 2010 13:47:12 -0400, William Clark
>In article <8bqotnFkjaU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
> "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote:
[. . .]
>> He is a piece of work. They don't get much more intolerant than Clark.
>Indeed, I am intolerant of intellectual dishonesty. It is what I am paid
>to be. Trying to argue against scientific data with ideas that depend
>solely on faith is just nonsense. Ask Steven J. Gould.
Unfortunately, he is no longer with us, but that was certainly his
position while he was alive. :-)
He (and others) use(d) the model of dual realms, faith and science,
which can sometimes share insights, but are separate modes of thought
with different criteria for validity. Neither can speak
authoritatively about the other. Pace, Steven!