-Caveat Lector- Just my input: Common DNA ancestory isn't even an argument. All mammals have common DNA, (and so what?). >From one who has much experience in this field of study, and a college education based on the subject matter... EVOLUTION is the lie of millennial and historical proportions. If it were true, humans would be evolving on galactical proportions, considering their time of appearance on the earth... yet, man has remained basically unchanged for the past 20,000+ years, as compared with the entire animal kingdom and what some scientists would lay claim to what has commonly become known as evolution. All things change; that's the nature of the beast. Some things change more than others, and truly, some do utilize their environment for change to adapt, but this is not the entire basis for the evolution theory. IF this DNA were the so-called 'common' thread, why is it that apes and man have not converged? That is because there is a definite barrier in place to prevent such an action. A barrier that will never be crossed. Consider the fact that in the natural order of species, most all species, even though their DNA is similar enough without a barrier, that they prefer their own kind... i.e. "kind after kind" in a natural process, and do not 'choose' to cross over into breeding outside their own kind. It is only in the minds of men with big pens and big armchairs, that write out ludicrous suppositions on paper that sound so good. And theoretically, some of it bears truth... but is not consistent to carry through all in this area of evolution. Scientists cannot explain the lack of evolution in animals such as the shark for example. There is no reason why it should not have become even more efficient than it already is. And on the same lines, the lungfish neither has changed, nor can any evidence be produced why it hasn't. What happened here? A fluke of nature? Hardly. When man gets his own ego and logic far enough out of the way and owns up enough to understand that he cannot comprehend the entire universe, or it's building blocks to the umpteenth power... and realize that there is truly a greater, ordered power behind all, then and only then will he come to grips with the hows and whys he is and how he became to this day to be the ruling species of the earth. But, that change doesn't seem to be anytime soon on the horizon. So the cop-out in my opinion, is that the fear that what man believes and what is truth may be totally different things, and man's ego simply won't let him believe that he might be wrong, particularly in this arena of evolution. Because this is just one of those avenues that seems to sooth certain people's logic as the perfect solution. Evolution is merely a theory. Another one of those suppositional things that cannot be proved or disproved, but is rather a matter of opinion, and what one chooses to believe as their own reality. Personally, I choose to, and I'll stick to the Creation facts, and still be willing to give anyone space who chooses to believe otherwise. eagle 1 ----- Original Message ----- From: Ric Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 16, 1999 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [CTRL] Fw: Re: [SC] Re: Kansas Board of Education vote on Evolution > -Caveat Lector- > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Stokes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > In a message dated 99-08-15 10:47:40 EDT, James writes: > > > > <<The evolution of a new species does not mean that the basic stock > > either goes existence, or that there must only be one descendent > > branch. Consider that wolves, dogs and foxes descend from a common > > ancestor, but the rise of one to fill an ecological niche doesn't > > mean that the others must go extinct.>> > > > > Only believers in the scientific religion of evolution would believe that > > dogs, foxes and wolves come from the same ancestor. Dogs & wolves maybe, > > they are nearly the same, I don't know about foxes. > > Dogs, wolves and foxes can all interbreed. Their DNA is nearly identical. > Their common ancestry is obvious. Humans and other great apes (bonobos, > chimps, gorillas, orangutans) all share similar DNA, to within 95-98%. > Our common ancestry is undeniable. All known primates share similar > behavior patterns too, showing the similarity of our DNA reflected in > our mental structures. You may believe what you wish, but evoluionary > biology is supported by a vast amount of data - it's the best, most > usable model we have thus far. If you have a better explanation, one > that's testable and more inclusive and parsimonious, please whip it out. > > > <<Humans and apes descended from a common ancestor. The rise of humans > > does not mean that apes must have been replaced.>> > > > > Again, this is the dogma of the evolutionist. There is no way to prove > > that humans and apes are from a common ancestor. > > <nok nok> Is this thing on? Hey, look at the common DNA, the behavioral > and structural similarities, and come up with a better explanation than > common ancestry, eh? Did an infinitely complex deity create humans and > other primates so they just LOOK like they have common ancestry, common > genetics? Dogma of evolutionists? Gimmee a BREAK!! Those arguing for > magickal creationism wrap themselves in dogma; evolution is a testable > theory, hotly debeate and and undergoing continuous revision, in flux > l\ike no explanation of life has ever been, challenged and tested and > verified as no dogma has ever been. That's how science works: test > every idea, see if it works. If it works, it survives. If not, it's > shitcanned. Dogmatic ideas survive despite being worthy of shitcanning. > That's why we still have religions and conspiratorialists. > > > <<You could extend this nonsense argument to ask why there are still > > fish when amphibians exist, or why are there still amphibians when > > there are reptiles, or why there are still reptiles when there are > > mammals, or why there are still dinosaurs when there are birds, uh, > > strike that last one :-).>> > > > > I don't believe that amphibians came from fish, so I would not make that > > analogy. > > What you believe is irrelevant to observable reality. > > > <<Gravity is "just a theory".>> > > > > You can observe gravity. > > We can observe evolution too. Evolution is [among other things] the > survival of change over time. Go to a microbiology lab, look in a > microscope, watch bacteria cross-fertilize and change and evolve > before your very eyes. New strains of influenza evolve constantly, > with tremendous effects on human communities - some live, some die. > "Think of it as evolution in action." --D.Niven > > > << If you believe that there is no evidence for evolution, you have > > either never seriously look for evidence, or are being willfully > > ignorant.>> > > > > Your opinion > > Nope, a stone cold fact. Have you ever taken and passed a biology course? > Do you have any idea what you're talking about when you attack evolution? > > > <<You seem to have a skewed idea of what a "theory" is. A theory is > > not shorthand for just any random idea.>> > > > > A theory is called a theory because it cannot be proven. > > Incorrect. A theory is a workable explanation supported by the > preponderence of data. In science, a theory is an explanation > agreed upon by a consensus of workers in a field, because it > best explains the pattern of observations. The idea that a > theory is "an explanation that can't be proved" has nothing to > do with science - that's rhetoric. Scientific theories don't > get "promoted" to LAWS when they're proved - a LAW is an equation > that describes mass/energy/time/space relationships, and it's > eminately demonstrable. A THEORY is a workable explanation. > > > << Evolution was not just "pulled out of scientist's asses." Evolution > > has a lot of data behind it. It comes in all forms and ranges from > > fossils to astrophysics to geology to microbiology. We can even look > > at agriculture to see a form of human-directed evolution of food > > crops and animal breeding.>> > > > > Did you take probability and statistics in college? If you did you > > know that data can be manipulated/skewed to favor one's analysis > > (theory). Can scientists trace the evolution of the first microbe > > to man with fossils ... I haven't seen this. > > "Figgers don't lie but liars figger." That's why a scientific theory > isn't accepted just because it looks pretty. The data are torturously > tested and questioned and verified before a hypothesis is accepted as > a workable explanation of the relevant data. You've never taken a > science course, have you? > > > <<Please post a copy of this alleged "government charter" for NAMBLA. > > At least post information on what governmental agency issued this > > charter.>> > > > > I trashed all the information I had on this organization, however you can > > look them up on the web at http://www.nambla.org > > Cop-out. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
