Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: What's your best-guess as to the age of the Universe? ***My best guess is 16Billion years. And it is also 6days old. It depends upon your relativistic perspective. I'm a creationist, and even a literal 6-day creationist at that. But I think Carbon 14 dating and all the other radiometric dating is reasonably accurate. I also think that light that has travelled 100M light years is 100M years old. Here's how I resolve it: Using Einstein's Twin Paradox. A twin that steps into a space ship and goes around at the speed of light for a year, comes back to visit his brother who has aged 100 years in that same period. And this is proven science -- physicists took a particle that only lasts a few milliseconds, accelerated it to near C, and its lifespan went from milliseconds to seconds. So, God zipped around the known universe at the time, and spent 6 days creating the heavens earth. Do we have any reason to think that He is limited to going only the speed of light? Nope. He undoubtedly zipped around the universe at far faster than the speed of light. From His perspective, it took 6 days. From the perspective of someone sitting on the earth at the time, it took 14Billion years. God's own little twin paradox, written in language of normal humans 3500 years ago. Pretty amazing.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:12 PM, Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Alas, an Amazon copy is around $32. I actually toyed with the idea of buying a copy and shipping it to you, but at the moment I really need to focus on some personal expenses. No need. Watch the author's presentation for free: Part I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvCDu6fdYio Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly4pGV6Y_gglist=UU5xFN8ccwDYrDbkQkOviJ6w Michael Cremo at Stanford Univ. looking a bit long in the tooth. I just paid a $2500 surgery bill for one of our cats who seriously dislocated a hind leg two weeks ago. Terry knows a little about the cat I'm talking about Ouch! Well, it makes my vet bill this week look nice. Mia had not had a seizure for two years but they began again last week. $217 and several doses of phenobarbitol later, it looks like they have stopped. Dogs have masters, cats have staff.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
The evidence only proves that you failed. You failed to stimulate macro-evolution. Can it be stimulated? From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 09:48:18 +0800 Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo: Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered garbage. But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking “science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends to play out over an eternity of time. ;-) What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today? http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover. The Bible says the Universe and the Earth was created in 6 literal days. Now, the day may not necessarily be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time. When he did that is not revealed in the Bible. Many Biblical scholars claim that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 6000 years old. I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that they could be wrong. After all, they are all human and their calculation is not from God. Also, this is a rough estimate. No exact dates are provided in reference to major events. Just hints here and there that place the event in its historical context. Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply prophecy to Biblical history. This is a valid Bible Study technique, since Prophecy is Prologue. What that means is that many events that occur in the Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another. Many scholars equate a 7-day prophecy to our history. 1 day is prophecied to be equal to 1000 years. Many prophecies put us on the 6th day. That is also where the 6000 years came from. The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem. So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is. Jojo PS. BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest. So, I will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium. Most likely just a city cause there would only be one church. So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me. (In case you missed it, IM JOKING) - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book. The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering (concluding) it. So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have access to a free copy. I am not willing to pay for one. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949/ref=sr_1_1?s=booksie=UTF8qid=1409142589sr=1-1keywords=forbidden+archeology In your personal opinion, how long do you think the Earth has been around? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 9:47 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Thank you for your candor, Jojo. Appreciate it. I have no desire to challenge your beliefs. It's pretty clear to me that your beliefs are very important to you, as are my own. I can respect that. Under the circumstances I think it only appropriate that I comment (or critique) my own personal beliefs... assuming I'm willing to share some of them. You might be surprised to realize that I'm open to a form of Intelligent Design, but not the kind taught by Christian fundamentalism. Personally, I think whatever one wants to call the Supreme Being, such an Entity does play dice with the universe. I think many intelligent entities, both great and small, do because of the creative surprises random choices offer. As such, I continue to find the macro evolution theory as it is currently described (warts and all) very appealing. IMO, macro-evolution allows for all sorts of random surprises to happen, and that that is a very good thing. I still think the theory (warts and all) does a good job of explaining how different kinds of species most likely came into existence. But like most theories that have managed to gain a lot of traction, it is still being refined. There is still much more to learn about the underlying mechanisms of macro-evolution. One thing is abundantly clear to me however - for macro-evolution to work, one has to have a LOT of patience and time on their hands. Macro-evolution ain't going to happen in 6,000, or 60,000 years. Much longer time-frames are necessary. ;-) Correct me if I'm wrong on this point but I'll assume that the actual length of time needed (i.e. millions of years) is probably another gross misconception you believe we macro evolutionists have made about how the age of the Universe. What's your best-guess as to the age of the Universe? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks From: Jojo Iznart [mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:10 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I believe in the Bible fully from cover to cover. The Bible says the Universe and the Earth was created in 6 literal days. Now, the day may not necessarily be 24 hours but the idea was that God created everything in a short time. When he did that is not revealed in the Bible. Many Biblical scholars claim that they can backtrace the genealogy and concluded that it is currently about 6000 years old. I have no reason to doubt them although I fully admit that they could be wrong. After all, they are all human and their calculation is not from God. Also, this is a rough estimate. No exact dates are provided in reference to major events. Just hints here and there that place the event in its historical context. Also, Biblical scholars who study Eschatology (study of End times, like Armageddon, 2nd Coming of Christ, Millenial Kingdom, etc.) sometimes apply prophecy to Biblical history. This is a valid Bible Study technique, since Prophecy is Prologue. What that means is that many events that occur in the Bible always have prophetic significance one way or another. Many scholars equate a 7-day prophecy to our history. 1 day is prophecied to be equal to 1000 years. Many prophecies put us on the 6th day. That is also where the 6000 years came from. The 7th day is the day of rest which they equate to the Millenial reign of King Christ from a literal throne in Jerusalem. So, if you ask me what I believe, there it is. Jojo PS. BTW, as a believer, the Bible says that I am a King and Priest. So, I will be running a city and/or a church in the Millenium. Most likely just a city cause there would only be one church. So, I'll be looking up some of you who have been nasty to me. (In case you missed it, IM JOKING) - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson mailto:orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 8:44 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Thanks for giving me a specific time-frame within the you tube link to fast forward to. Right now I don't have the time to wade through the entire lecture, but I did listen to the specific section about disproving the horse evolution theory. I did perform a spot check here and there. I do see the lecturer has a lot of charisma. Possessing charisma always helps to persuade the audience. Using a healthy dose of ridicule is always entertaining too. As for me, using ridicule to insinuate we are trying to create a whale from corn is not likely to convince me that evolution is a failed theory, 41:15. I think you would enjoy reading Forbidden Archeology, if you haven't already. I think there are some intriguing, as well as controversial, findings listed in this book. http://books.google.com/books/about/Forbidden_Archeology.html?id=vhV9MAAJ http
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
From: Jojo Do you have a free copy of this Forbidden Archeology book. The Bible teaches us to hear (eaxmine) the matter before asnswering (concluding) it. So, I'd like to read this on my spare time if I have access to a free copy. I am not willing to pay for one. Alas, an Amazon copy is around $32. I actually toyed with the idea of buying a copy and shipping it to you, but at the moment I really need to focus on some personal expenses. I just paid a $2500 surgery bill for one of our cats who seriously dislocated a hind leg two weeks ago. Terry knows a little about the cat I'm talking about - an abandoned cat we rescued up at a desert rest stop in Idaho two years ago. She would have been a gonner had we not had an RFID locator attached to her collar. (See www.loc8tor.com) We were able to locate her hiding under some corrugated sheet metal. She was trying to die, quietly, away from jaws of other predators. Fortunately, she is now recovering. Someday, so will my wallet. In the meantime, read the reviews on Forbidden Archeology. Perhaps they might whet your appetite. http://www.amazon.com/Forbidden-Archeology-Hidden-History-Human/dp/0892132949 There is also a website: http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/ Have fun! It's free! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Is somebody interested in a documented discussion about: Use and abuse of the comma in the sanskrit poetry of the 13-th Century B.C.? There are 13,289 forums specialized in Evolution vs. Involution Peter On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
It is important to make this distinction because we need to be specific in our definition of what is occuring. Mircro and Macro has nothing to do with size or amount of evolution. It has something to do with the mechanism of evolution. Many people nowadays do not like to use the term microevolution cause it invites confusion just like this. Microevolution is adaptation within a species (kind). Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:22 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Butting in here... Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking process to complete. In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro evolution as starting with species :A and then ending up with species B. Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species A and species B as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted motion feature film showing the motion of evolution in constant change. This would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends. There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from species A to species B, particularly when it takes geological time to make the transformation blatantly obvious. OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate (original) sample of the initial organism, A ,then presumably after the experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice versa. For example, organism A can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees below, and organism B can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... something like that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
My friend, are you actually saying that my propane flat plate heat exchanger did not work is because I did it wrong? Did you do any better? Are you here to contend that the propane FPHE contraption actually works as you theorized? Can you make it work? Please show us cause if it is overunity, that would be revolutionary and you will win the Nobel Prize. Please show us your experiments. (Oh sorry for asking ... you DONT do any experiments LOL.) Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 2:56 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: My friend, are you actually saying that my propane flat plate heat exchanger did not work is because I did it wrong? ***Yes. Did you do any better? ***Others seem to have done better than you in this replication attempt. Are you here to contend that the propane FPHE contraption actually works as you theorized? Can you make it work? ***Interesting. Using negative results to denigrate a theory. Where have we seen this before? And also, where have we seen this stupid approach proven invalid before? Please show us cause if it is overunity, that would be revolutionary and you will win the Nobel Prize. Please show us your experiments. (Oh sorry for asking ... you DONT do any experiments LOL.) ***Some are experimentalists, some are theorists. Where is YOUR theory so we can happily dance on its grave? Ooops, you haven't submitted a theory. Even someone as pedestrian as myself have submitted theories to this mail archive. But you haven't. That doesn't seem to stop you from keying up on some theorist that your favorite puppeteer famous email exchange artist has you all wrapped around the Axil about... Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:42 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Sure, we can work together, but I was not asking a religious question. I am presenting a genuine challenge that Darwinian Evolutionist must meet. Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. Preferably one that is observed and repeatable. But I am willing to back off and require only observed. Surely if this were to happen, this should have happened in our accelerated bacteria experiments. We should have seen bacteria change into some other species like a fungi or mold or leaf, etc. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 11:24 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for? Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live that long, but neither can you. You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is capable of perceiving this change from a geological POV. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. On what time scale are we talking here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
New diseases caused by new bacteria or viruses are simply variation within a species. The bacteria never change to become something else other than bacteria. This is not Macro-Evolution, this is micro-evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Sunil Shah To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:27 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Just show me one example of a species turning to another species. On what time scale are we talking here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Because the mechanism is different. Macro-Evolution stipulates mutations that results in features that confer a survival advantage. These changes occur from generation to generation. This is the definition of Natural Selection. Micro-Evolution involves changes in features within a single individual species within its own lifetime. When our skin turns dark after prolonged exposure to the sun, that is change but that is not Macro-evolution - it's micro-evolution, it's simply adaptation - changes within a species. The changes never result in a new species. The changes are rapid which results in new features. The genetic code is already there in our DNA, no mutations need to occur to confer that new feature. This is the critical thing that people must understand to understand the difference between Macro-Evolution vs. Micro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution has never been observable or repeatable. If you know of any example where we clearly observe a species changing to another species; please let me know and I'll shut up about Darwinian Evolution forever. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for? Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live that long, but neither can you. You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is capable of perceiving this change from a geological POV. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
http://www.shafted.com.au/photos/albums/funnies/a/thumb_Animal%20Sex%20(Dog%20%20Racoon).jpg On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: Because the mechanism is different. Macro-Evolution stipulates mutations that results in features that confer a survival advantage. These changes occur from generation to generation. This is the definition of Natural Selection. Micro-Evolution involves changes in features within a single individual species within its own lifetime. When our skin turns dark after prolonged exposure to the sun, that is change but that is not Macro-evolution - it's micro-evolution, it's simply adaptation - changes within a species. The changes never result in a new species. The changes are rapid which results in new features. The genetic code is already there in our DNA, no mutations need to occur to confer that new feature. This is the critical thing that people must understand to understand the difference between Macro-Evolution vs. Micro-Evolution. Macro-Evolution has never been observable or repeatable. If you know of any example where we clearly observe a species changing to another species; please let me know and I'll shut up about Darwinian Evolution forever. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 8:28 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Lots of microevolution and adaptation does not result in Macro-evolution (change of species/kind). This distinction is important. How do you know that? And why must you maintain this distinction? Why is it important for you to keep them separate. I don't. What for? Have you measured all those thousands of micro changes over hundreds of thousands of years and proven the contention that a species can't eventually transform into a different one? I know I'm not capable because I can't live that long, but neither can you. You seem to be implying that each micro change can never reset the center of the genetic normality of any species. But that's inaccurate. Every micro change... every micro-mutation automatically resets the center of genetic normality of the species for that particular organism. Actually, there is no way to keep a species from NOT changing over millennium. Each and every species on the planet is essentially an unstable macro-organism if one is capable of perceiving this change from a geological POV. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I gave up on Creationism for various reasons. One central reason is the profound lack of any ethical or moral background in creation. This is inconsistent with the idea of a personal God but entirely what should be expected from evolution. Nature red in tooth and claw. Christians are too quick to quote Romans in regard to God's power seen thru his creation. To human sensibilites, it is a world of predation and horror. Indeed, the record of dinosaurs contradicts the whole notion of a pacific beginning in Genesis. This is likely why some crazier Creationists try to deny the fossils or say the Devil must have made them! I used to argue that 'no one has ever observed a new species emerge that can no longer reproduce with its parent species'. I was told some years back that that used to be true but now has been disproven in some studies of plants.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
This summer I read On the Origin of the Species from cover to cover for the first time. I had not realised what a truely remarkable book it is. It covers the dogs/wolves question in great detail. In some respects my day job could be described as being an evolutionary geneticist, and it is remarkable how much of the detail of what I work on was predicted in Darwins book. He describes in great detail the general principles of evolution, which are backed up by the DNA sequences that I work on. Interestingly, Darwin discusses how if you specifically breed for variation in a specific characteristic (his example is pigieon beak length) then this shows greater variablity in future variations. He also discusses how some things show a remarkable fixedness over vast periods of time. This suggests the possibility that evolution may proceed in fits and starts: puncutated equilibrium, and yet he then talks very much in terms of gradual and continuous evolution, which has become taken as the defining feature of Darwinian evolution. Punctuated equilibrium is seen as somethiong of a heresy. I have always felt that punctuated equilibrium was far more consistent with the evidence, both fossil records and from DNA, and I strongly suspect that it is associated with the DNA rearrangements that occur occasionally (I have been looking at a virus sequence where a section of the sequence has become inverted). There was also a recent paper that shows that one of the differences between the hooded crow and the black crow, which can interbreed so is arguably a single species, is an inversion of part of the DNA sequence. This will have occurred with one individual (a punctuation of the equilibrium), and has subsequently allowed the two crow races to drift away from each other, potentially leading ultimately to two species. Nigel On 26/08/2014 17:21, David Roberson wrote: Correct me if Iam wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com mailto:jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation harry
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/12/18/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/ The above reports an example of a new species that emerged in modern times that can no longer reproduce with its parent species. Thus, we have an unambiguous example of macro evolution.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the offspring is a new species, but I don't think that is a valid argument. We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human. Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. I do not believe this reproduction criteria is valid. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
From Jojo: Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered garbage. But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking “science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends to play out over an eternity of time. ;-) What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today? http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo says Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. Oh is that why your not getting any? Hahaha. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the offspring is a new species, but I don't think that is a valid argument. We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human. Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. I do not believe this reproduction criteria is valid. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:31 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From Jojo: Well, science is supposed to be observable and repeatable. That implies a timeframe within our lifetimes. If you can not satisfy these 2 criteria, it's not science, let alone settled science that Darwinists would like you to believe. I think I see where the confusion might lie. I can also see why you might think evolution isn’t following proper scientific protocol. Regarding proper scientific protocol, I certainly hope the length of time involved for evolution to be observed has been made abundantly clear in previous posts. Otherwise, the rest of what this post will attempt to touch on, I fear, will be considered garbage. But you are right in a sense. Concerning evolution, we are not talking “science”. We are instead talking “theory”. Evolution is described as a theory, but a pretty convincing theory, at least from my POV. It’s called a theory because there is no way we know how to practically assemble a scientific experiment that could document evolution occurring considering the extremely short time-frames scientific experiments have to be conducted within. A real authentic scientific experiment would have to be conducted over hundreds of thousands of years. Millions of years would be better. I doubt humans would ever get around to funding something that would take that much time. We tend to be an impatient species. Not enuf of an immediate Return-On-Investment (ROI). But then, for Mr. or Mrs. God - a million years here… a million there… it’s probably nothing more than a flick of a majestic eyelash! I tend to imagine God’s ROI, as something akin to “Oh! Cool! That’s interesting. What If I try… THIS!” Thus, God throws the dice again, and again. But then, I freely admit, that’s just my personal interpretation of how the Grand Scheme of Things tends to play out over an eternity of time. ;-) What are your thoughts about certain fossil records that seem to indicate what present-day horses may have come from? What did their ancestors possibly look like starting about 30 million years ago? What happened to those little creatures in-between the time-frames of 30 million years ago up to today? http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
This is how I know I am winning the argument. When people resort to mockery and insults. But, my friend, have at it. Jojo - Original Message - From: CB Sites To: vortex-l Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 9:34 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo says Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. Oh is that why your not getting any? Hahaha. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: We used to think that mating and reproduction is the criteria to judge that the offspring is a new species, but I don't think that is a valid argument. We see cases everyday in humans wherein an offspring is so genetically deformed that it can not reproduce and yet it is still human. Failure to mate and reproduce demonstrates a genetic problem, not demonstrate a Macro-Evolution event. I do not believe this reproduction criteria is valid. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Correct me if I am wrong Jojo, but I suspect you are looking for a case where a beginning species evolves into a second species that can no longer share genes with the original mother species, but can reproduce among its new members. My first thoughts were how dogs were derived from wolves, but I believe that they can still breed together. I suppose my dog is a wolf in disguise. Mules are close to what you are seeking, but they are a combination of two different species and sterile in most cases(all but one that I have read about). I suppose a beginning search would include different animal species that mate among themselves but do not bear young as a result. I do not keep up with such statistics and perhaps some on the list are knowledgeable in the subject and can enlighten us. If these different mating species have the same number of chromosomes then perhaps once they shared a common ancestor species. At least this would seem to be a good way to seek examples of current evolution if it can be found. Dave -Original Message- From: Sunil Shah s.u.n@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 26, 2014 8:27 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots I really don't know if new diseases counts as an example of evolution to you, but a quick search came up with this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45714/ A weird example of this I suppose, is this contagious cancer. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123141742.htm I was rather awestruck by the implications of such a disease (the fact that it carries the genome of the ORIGINAL bearer!) But I will also agree, that contagious cancer isn't a disease-spreading species (a virus or bacterium). So we could disqualified it from the new diseases suggestion. /Sunil -- From: jojoiznar...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:27:46 +0800 Baloney, if you know the subject as you claim, and there are thousands of books; then it should not be a problem for you to give me ONE example. Just one example of an observed macro-evolution event where we can see one species change into another. JUST ONE... Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2014 10:51 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . . . In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses starting 30 million years ago. http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Actually, reproduction by cellular mitosis would favor evolution. If Macro-evolution is occuring, cellular mitosis should prove it quickly. Why? Because one one set of genes can produce a trait that would confer a survival advantage. If reproduction is by cellular meiosis. both mutations have to be compatible for it to generate a trait. This task is more difficult and will occur at less probability compounding the long long long odds already facing Macro-Evolution. Regarding Horse Evolution, that was debunked about 5 decades ago. I have a video for that but it is long. Horse evolution discussion starts at time 41:26. It talks about the Equus seris of horse evolution in your article. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk Jojo - Original Message - From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 10:18 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots From: Jojo Well, we have conducted evolution experiments in the lab where we subjected bacteria to artificial stress to stimulate macro-evolution. These accelerated trials would be the equivalent of millions of years of natural selection. And yet, what did we find? We find that the bacteria did change and adapt to the stress but yet remained the same bacteria. This is micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. The bacteria was simply expressing certain genetic traits already built into its DNA. No mutation. In this particular experiment I am talking about, E. Coli gained resistance to penicilin. That is adaptation,no macro evolution. In the end, E. Coli was still E. Coli. the same bacteria. No species jump. It did not become some other kind of mold or something. And most remarkably, when the stress was removed, the E. Coli population then reverted to its original form where it was E. Coli susceptible again. Natural selection was clearly not operative here. Its evidence like this that is suppressed to foist the biggest lie on people. Interesting experiment. I know I also suggested using bacteria in a previous post. I'm glad someone has actually conducted it using bacteria. Do you know how long the experiment was conducted? I do see a problem with this particular experiment, even though I think it was a good stab at trying to observe evolution working. Bacteria don't reproduce sexually. They clone themselves. It's a much more simplified carbon-copy process of perpetuating the species. There's far less potential to introduce mutation and other genetic changes with each successive generation. There is very little chance for the random exchange of genes between two organisms. Introducing random genetic change is, IMO, crucial for the theory of evolution to work effectively. I would like to see an equivalent experiment done with a much more complex organism, say a simple animal, a Planarian. They are fascinating little creatures. They are simple animals but complex multi-cellular organisms nevertheless. But if you split them part way down the middle down their length starting with the head they will eventually split apart completely and become two individuated worms. You wouldn't think a complex multi-cellular animal organism would be capable of doing that, not after they have been hatched! Alas, I'm not sure this kind of an experiment would work because of the time frames involved. It would have to take decades of persistent research in order to possibly notice if we could eventually create a new species of worm that is incapable of sexually reproducing with the original organism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian . . . In the meantime, I'd still like your opinion on what you think is happening concerning what the text below reveals as an example of the evolution of horses starting 30 million years ago. http://www.examiner.com/article/stranger-than-fiction-the-evolution-of-the-horse What do you personally believe is happening here? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
James B. I hope I understand what you are saying. There are biological reasons for our behavior and it is hard to replace them with some cultural etiquette. If that is what you said then I agree with you. I also believe this kind of believe is accentuated by our school system and our most influential organizations. That is a problem as if you base your behavior on facts not experienced. It is like building a house on sand. I think it is to be avoided already in biblical time. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 202 Granite Park Court, Lincoln CA 95648 “Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort.” PJM On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:45 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. Oh, yes, I know they'll deny it when I put it that way but when it comes to public policy the gaping black-hole of avoiding being cast as anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews creates an intellectual dead-zone around anything resembling rational thought about the biology, let alone biodiversity, of human behavior. As a consequence, educated young people end up being put into de facto sterilizing urban environments where considering the evolutionary consequences of their own evolutionary demise is worthy only of anaziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews. This de facto genocide of cultures that allow their young people to be educated has a very predictable _evolutionary_ consequence: The next generation will be comprised of people who managed to avoid being educated. Hell, they'll believe that underground gerbies are secretly pulling levers on a grand clockwork mechanism that was designed by ancient engineers from the planet zebulack if that's what it takes to avoid being educated into extinction. Get real: Fix your own intellectual house before you start trying to treat symptoms of your genocide against the intelligent and educated.
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. I have no idea who or what your are talking about here, and I suspect you do not know either. FYI, biologists (not evolutionists) say that: 1. Humans are not unique among life forms. They resemble other primates and other intelligent species. 2. All behavior is caused by biology, and all biology is rooted in evolution. That is the opposite of what you said. In essence, all human behavior along with every aspect of physiology is the product of evolution. 3. Some human behavior is learned, or cultural. This is also true of other primates, and other intelligent species, such as wolves, crows, and other birds. This is why, for example, there are regional variations in crow calls. (An expert on crows can detect where an audio recording was made by the sounds of crows in the background. This has been done in police investigations, as I recall.) This is no contradiction with item 2. It means evolution has created a mechanism in many animals that allows them to mimic and learn behavior from other members of their species, and to take advantage of changes in the environment by devising new behaviors, and new uses of tools. Many species use tools of various types, such as seagulls dropping shells on rocks to break them open. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
You obviously weren't around Harvard when Gould and Lewontin went on their rampage against Wilson over sociobiology. You're out of touch with the facts on the ground in academia with regards to the social sciences. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Evolutionists -- or perhaps I should call them pseudo-evolutionists believe that humans, unique among life forms, exhibit behavior not from biological evolution but from cultural determinism. I have no idea who or what your are talking about here, and I suspect you do not know either. FYI, biologists (not evolutionists) say that: 1. Humans are not unique among life forms. They resemble other primates and other intelligent species. 2. All behavior is caused by biology, and all biology is rooted in evolution. That is the opposite of what you said. In essence, all human behavior along with every aspect of physiology is the product of evolution. 3. Some human behavior is learned, or cultural. This is also true of other primates, and other intelligent species, such as wolves, crows, and other birds. This is why, for example, there are regional variations in crow calls. (An expert on crows can detect where an audio recording was made by the sounds of crows in the background. This has been done in police investigations, as I recall.) This is no contradiction with item 2. It means evolution has created a mechanism in many animals that allows them to mimic and learn behavior from other members of their species, and to take advantage of changes in the environment by devising new behaviors, and new uses of tools. Many species use tools of various types, such as seagulls dropping shells on rocks to break them open. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
RE: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
From Jojo By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Butting in here... Seems to me that Macro-Evolution is nothing more than Micro-Evolution happening on a much longer geological time-scale. I don't see what the big deal is. Why is it so important to make the distinction between what is considered micro versus macro. To me it makes logical sense to assume that stringing a couple hundred thousand micro changes together on a long successive string of successive micro-mutations will inevitably end up with blatant macro-mutation changes - when compared with what one started with. To me macro changes would have to be inevitable outcome. One just needs enough time for the baking process to complete. In a sense I think it is also somewhat of a misconception to describe Macro evolution as starting with species :A and then ending up with species B. Macro evolution isn't about a start point, nor an end point. Macro evolution about the present and only the present. It doesn't care one whit about what happened yesterday, and it has no idea what to expect tomorrow. There is only one goal: to survive in the present. According to evolution theory, this is a never-ending process of constant change and adaption to minute changes in current environment conditions. But again, there really isn't any start and end point. I think it would be more accurate to describe both species A and species B as nothing more than tiny snapshots belonging to the uncompleted motion feature film showing the motion of evolution in constant change. This would be a film that for all tense and purposes never ends. There is no practical way to conduct a science experiment in a laboratory on observing Macro evolution changing a complex multi-cellular organism from species A to species B, particularly when it takes geological time to make the transformation blatantly obvious. OTOH, it might be interesting to see if it's possible to observe the macro-evolution a simple organism, say a bacterium, or better yet a paramecium. Because their life cycles are short, one can produced countless generations which might allow an accumulation of micro mutations to eventually accumulate into macro mutations. We need to start with one kind of an environment and then gradually change the conditions in order to allow evolution to manifest a radically different organism over several years. Make sure the environmental changes occur reasonably slow so that the organism has time to produce FAVORABLE micro mutations and as such adjust micro-genetically. Keep a separate (original) sample of the initial organism, A ,then presumably after the experiment ends, compare the original genetic mapping with the later time-line genetic mapping. One important point to see if we really have produced new organism: The new organism must be so different that it is incapable of living in the environmental conditions of where its progenitors came from, and vice versa. For example, organism A can only live in temperatures of 50 degrees below, and organism B can only live in temperatures above 100 degrees... something like that. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson svjart.orionworks.com zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? There are thousands of books full of irrefutable proof that Darwinian evolution is occurring. For you, or anyone else, to question it is exactly like questioning Newton's law of gravity, or the fact that bacteria causes disease. I am not going to debate this. Anyone who denies basic science on this level is grossly ignorant. These nonsensical distinctions between macro- and micro-level evolution have no basis in fact. They are the product of religious creationism, which is sacrilegious nonsense, since it posits God as a cosmic deceiver who filled every nook and cranny of life with proof of evolution just as a trick to fool us. If you want to learn about evolution and biology, read a textbook. Don't annoy people who know the subject. I will not try to spoon-feed you facts about nature that you should have learned in 3rd grade. Anyone who makes the kind of ridiculous assertions about evolution that you make is beyond my help. I spent far too much time trying to educate people about cold fusion. When people have no idea of how the laws of thermodynamics operate, or the difference between power and energy, there is no chance they can understand cold fusion. It is a waste of time trying to explain it. I have uploaded papers on cold fusion, including some guides for beginners. Other people have uploaded beginner's guides to evolution. Learn from them, or wallow in ignorance. Your choice. As Arthur Clarke used to say: over and out! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
I think all of us, including the universe are creating every day, evolving every day and dying a little each day. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:24 PM, James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Jojo, I'm a genuine evolutionist. I don't pick and choose when to turn on and off my intellectual integrity regarding evolution. One thing my theory tells me is that you, like so many others who are irrationally religous, are doing what is necessary to survive in the hell hole that has been created of our civilization. I sympathize with your religious beliefs and, unlike scum like Dawkins et al, I do not begrudge them you. Please, let us continue to with our separate beliefs and work together where we can. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
Re: [Vo]:Evolutionists As Idiots
One reason why JoJo's systems do not work is that he spends a great deal of time posting and not enough experimenting. He expects other people to do his work for him. On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Jojo Iznart jojoiznar...@gmail.com wrote: To Jed and the rest of Darwinian Evolutionists here: I have a simple question: 1. What is your best evidence of Darwinian Evolution occuring? By Darwinian Evolution - I mean Macro-Evolution of one species (One kind) turning into another species (another kind). I do not mean micro-evolution (aka variation, aka adaptation.) I know micro-evolution occurs. I want macro-evolution demonstrated and observed. Please state just one example where this mechanism is observed and repeatable. Darwinists claim that their theory is settled science, and as Jed and other correctly pointed out, science for it to be science must be repeatable. I would like to see one example (just one example) where this is observed and repeated. (Maybe not even repeated - just observed) Jojo
