Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
I believe that our science is limited by our observational instrumentation, therefore our science is imperfect. In this light, the Darwinian theory of evolution in its original form is constrained by the observational tools that mankind had available to them in that past time and is comparatively imperfect. In the context of the above proviso, Darwinian Evolution as originally proposed is not thehard fact-based science that some people take it to be. In many cases it has been overridden by more modern observation. Currently, with computers, electron microscopes ...and so on... at our disposal, the hunt for knowledge goes on, but still in an imperfect way. In the near future, we will have more and proper tools to expand our understanding of the processes of life and inheritance. We will gain benefits in the field of medicine, for example, where many more lives will be saved as treatment is more fully customize to each persons genetic makeup. It seems to me like the anti-science political faction does not recognize the imperfect nature of physical science and aspires to the metaphysical protection of abstract thought. From the depths of the dark ages when spiritual beliefs we transcendent over science, to the current development of metaphysics, no lives have been saved by this way of thinking. I have no problems in leaving the philosophers think whatever they want to, but I want my doctor to follow the latest proven genetically base course of treatments, as poor as they may currently be. What I don't want to hear from ny doctor is all you can do is prey, I can't help you with this problem, we just don't really know enough about that right now. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk of being excommunicated from the field. My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not thehard fact-based science that it claims to be. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much to the confusion of the debate. What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. I defer to physicists on almost all
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
I am not lamenting the shortcomings of science, I am lamenting the lack of integrity of scientists. We need to realize that Science is objective, but scientists are not. The Darwinian-Dogma Cathedral that scientists have erected has become the central religious icon of this new religion. Anyone who even so much as hints at questioning this Darwinian dogma is browbeaten and denied research funds and exommunicated as a biased heretic, just as Bob Parks try to cut off Cold Fusion research. There is no difference. Both Darwinian Evolution and Hot fusion has become a religion where dissent is NOT tolerated. I hope you can see that. Until scientists begin to realize their true mission - the search for the truth, we will always be chasing down rabbit holes of increasingly dubious theories and ideas. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions I believe that our science is limited by our observational instrumentation, therefore our science is imperfect. In this light, the Darwinian theory of evolution in its original form is constrained by the observational tools that mankind had available to them in that past time and is comparatively imperfect. In the context of the above proviso, Darwinian Evolution as originally proposed is not thehard fact-based science that some people take it to be. In many cases it has been overridden by more modern observation. Currently, with computers, electron microscopes ...and so on... at our disposal, the hunt for knowledge goes on, but still in an imperfect way. In the near future, we will have more and proper tools to expand our understanding of the processes of life and inheritance. We will gain benefits in the field of medicine, for example, where many more lives will be saved as treatment is more fully customize to each persons genetic makeup. It seems to me like the anti-science political faction does not recognize the imperfect nature of physical science and aspires to the metaphysical protection of abstract thought. From the depths of the dark ages when spiritual beliefs we transcendent over science, to the current development of metaphysics, no lives have been saved by this way of thinking. I have no problems in leaving the philosophers think whatever they want to, but I want my doctor to follow the latest proven genetically base course of treatments, as poor as they may currently be. What I don't want to hear from ny doctor is all you can do is prey, I can't help you with this problem, we just don't really know enough about that right now. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk of being excommunicated from the field. My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not thehard fact-based science that it claims to be. Jojo
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
This exchange between Stephen Meyer and Atheist Peter Atkins serves to illustrate what is wrong with science today: Stephen Meyer: - the problem is people don't want to talk about the science - they denounce dissent as unscientific - they will not debate about whther natural causes can explain the information - I want to talk about the science Peter Atkins: - ID people raise interesting questions for naturalists to work on - but you want to tell us what the answer is (intelligence) before we begin - you start from the idea that an intelligence was involved Justin Brierley: - but you start with the idea that natural mechanisms can explain everything! Stephen Meyer: - for Dr. Atkins, only explanations based on material processes are valid Peter Atkins: - that is correct For people like Peter Atkins, any explanation that is not based on material naturalistic process is void irregardless of the merits. Such is the sad state of affairs today. Check out the full debate here: https://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2012/05/11/stephen-c-meyer-and-peter-atkins-debate-intelligent-design/ Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions I believe that our science is limited by our observational instrumentation, therefore our science is imperfect. In this light, the Darwinian theory of evolution in its original form is constrained by the observational tools that mankind had available to them in that past time and is comparatively imperfect. In the context of the above proviso, Darwinian Evolution as originally proposed is not thehard fact-based science that some people take it to be. In many cases it has been overridden by more modern observation. Currently, with computers, electron microscopes ...and so on... at our disposal, the hunt for knowledge goes on, but still in an imperfect way. In the near future, we will have more and proper tools to expand our understanding of the processes of life and inheritance. We will gain benefits in the field of medicine, for example, where many more lives will be saved as treatment is more fully customize to each persons genetic makeup. It seems to me like the anti-science political faction does not recognize the imperfect nature of physical science and aspires to the metaphysical protection of abstract thought. From the depths of the dark ages when spiritual beliefs we transcendent over science, to the current development of metaphysics, no lives have been saved by this way of thinking. I have no problems in leaving the philosophers think whatever they want to, but I want my doctor to follow the latest proven genetically base course of treatments, as poor as they may currently be. What I don't want to hear from ny doctor is all you can do is prey, I can't help you with this problem, we just don't really know enough about that right now. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk of being excommunicated from the field. My
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
You can add man made global warming to your list of Dogma. Try to get funding for a study that suggests that nature trumps our contributions. The usual way to deny discussions in these fields is to say that The science is settled. I believe that phrase is attributed to Nobel Prize winner Gore. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Aug 4, 2012 3:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions I am not lamenting the shortcomings of science, I am lamenting the lack of integrity of scientists. We need to realize that Science is objective, but scientists are not. The Darwinian-Dogma Cathedral that scientists have erected has become the central religious icon of this new religion. Anyone who even so much as hints at questioning this Darwinian dogma is browbeaten and denied research funds and exommunicated as a biased heretic, just as Bob Parks try to cut off Cold Fusion research. There is no difference. Both Darwinian Evolution and Hot fusion has become a religion where dissent is NOT tolerated. I hope you can see that. Until scientists begin to realize their true mission - the search for the truth, we will always be chasing down rabbit holes of increasingly dubious theories and ideas. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions I believe that our science is limited by our observational instrumentation, therefore our science is imperfect. In this light, the Darwinian theory of evolution in its original form is constrained by the observational tools that mankind had available to them in that past time and is comparatively imperfect. In the context of the above proviso, Darwinian Evolution as originally proposed is not thehard fact-based science that some people take it to be. In many cases it has been overridden by more modern observation. Currently, with computers, electron microscopes ...and so on... at our disposal, the hunt for knowledge goes on, but still in an imperfect way. In the near future, we will have more and proper tools to expand our understanding of the processes of life and inheritance. We will gain benefits in the field of medicine, for example, where many more lives will be saved as treatment is more fully customize to each persons genetic makeup. It seems to me like the anti-science political faction does not recognize the imperfect nature of physical science and aspires to the metaphysical protection of abstract thought. From the depths of the dark ages when spiritual beliefs we transcendent over science, to the current development of metaphysics, no lives have been saved by this way of thinking. I have no problems in leaving the philosophers think whatever they want to, but I want my doctor to follow the latest proven genetically base course of treatments, as poor as they may currently be. What I don't want to hear from ny doctor is all you can do is prey, I can't help you with this problem, we just don't really know enough about that right now. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Jojo, You strike me as having been seduced by the dark side of the Vort Collective and now willing to participate in some of your favorite Off-Topic discussions – including the generation of a few of your own. A good scrappy discussion can occasionally be a refreshing treat for many here, as long as everyone adheres to basic netiquette rules and ad-hominine attacks are kept out of the picture. BTW, why aren’t you prefixing the subject threads with “OT”? * * * I must confess the fact that I have not read the entire thread, so maybe I may have missed the fact that you have already touched on the following points: You give me the impression that you are much more sympathetic to a Creationist perspective - that geological formations like the Grand Canyon were created suddenly, such as from the accounts of “The Great Flood.” Please correct me if I am in error on such matters. What is your explanation for the scientific implications that come out of scientific measurements deduced from radioactive decay, such as carbon dating? I guess I’m trying to assess whether it is your belief that the world was created, in geological terms, very recently (i.e. Genesis) as compared to what is currently the accepted “scientific” POV, that the world coalesced approximately 4.5 billion years ago. BTW, I assume you are aware of the Creation Museum, located down in Kentucky: http://creationmuseum.org/ I’d love to visit the museum. I think it would be a real hoot. Of course, as you might expect, not everyone is in agreement with the conclusions that have been presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionwork
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism Creationism is the religious belief[1] that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being, most often referring to the Abrahamic God. As science developed from the 18th century onwards, various views developed which aimed to reconcile science with the Abrahamic creation narrative.[2] At this time those holding that species had been separately created (such as Philip Gosse in 1847) were generally called advocates of creation but they were occasionally called creationists in private correspondence between Charles Darwin and his friends. As the creation–evolution controversy developed, the term anti-evolutionists became more common, then in 1929 in the United States the term creationism first became specifically associated with Christian fundamentalist disbelief in human evolution and belief in a young Earth, though its usage was contested by other groups, such as theistic evolutionists, who believed in various concepts of creation.[3] Creationism is a reaction to Charles Darwin and his friends. The biblical justification of these beliefs springs primarily from the Hebrew creation myth as related in the book of Genisis in the Bible. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 1:50 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote: Jojo, ** ** You strike me as having been seduced by the dark side of the Vort Collective and now willing to participate in some of your favorite Off-Topic discussions – including the generation of a few of your own. A good scrappy discussion can occasionally be a refreshing treat for many here, as long as everyone adheres to basic netiquette rules and ad-hominine attacks are kept out of the picture. ** ** BTW, why aren’t you prefixing the subject threads with “OT”? ** ** * * * ** ** I must confess the fact that I have not read the entire thread, so maybe I may have missed the fact that you have already touched on the following points: You give me the impression that you are much more sympathetic to a Creationist perspective - that geological formations like the Grand Canyon were created suddenly, such as from the accounts of “The Great Flood.” Please correct me if I am in error on such matters. ** ** What is your explanation for the scientific implications that come out of scientific measurements deduced from radioactive decay, such as carbon dating? ** ** I guess I’m trying to assess whether it is your belief that the world was created, in geological terms, very recently (i.e. Genesis) as compared to what is currently the accepted “scientific” POV, that the world coalesced approximately 4.5 billion years ago. ** ** BTW, I assume you are aware of the Creation Museum, located down in Kentucky: ** ** http://creationmuseum.org/ ** ** I’d love to visit the museum. I think it would be a real hoot. ** ** Of course, as you might expect, not everyone is in agreement with the conclusions that have been presented: ** ** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc ** ** http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/ ** ** Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionwork ** **
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Le Aug 4, 2012 à 10:50 AM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net a écrit : What is your explanation for the scientific implications that come out of scientific measurements deduced from radioactive decay, such as carbon dating? I have not followed the debate concerning the possibility that the universe was created relatively recently and that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the flood mentioned in the Old Testament. I did enjoy reading Inherit the Wind when I was younger. It seems to me that this debate forces the whole question of the scientific endeavor by attacking it at its roots. A case in point is that of the long-lived radioisotopes, which if one is to buy into the scientific account have a half-life of billions or years or more. Bystanders would seem to be presented with the following choice: 1. Assume that the radioisotopes really were created billions of years ago in the way that they seem to have come about (billions of years for the most part; 14C is continually replenished). This presents the recent-creation accounts with a difficulty to be explained. 2. Assume that the related science is manufactured, either through elaborate error or through intentional deception and sleight of hand. This would have to be a very impressive ruse to successfully pull off. 3. Assume that the universe was brought about very quickly in such a way that it contains long-lived radioisotopes which *appear* to be billions of years old but actually aren't. Options (2) and (3) will obviously seem incredible to most people. I'm no intellectual historian, but my guess is that intelligent design came about as an attempted compromise with science as creationists grappled with this and related challenges. The interesting point here is that recent-creation and intelligent design accounts would seem to be quite incompatible with one another. If your goal was logical consistency, you would hesitate to argue for both. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Steven, I am relunctantly engaging in these off-topic posts to make a point. Since, you and Jed refuse to moderate your off-topic posts despite my numerous pleas, I am now doing this to make a point and settle a bet with Terry. That there is a double standard that exists in Vortex-L. If there is none and I loose the bet, I take Terry and Jed out to an expensive lunch. That's all. Yes, you may be correct in calling me a Creationist; but one thing you need to realize is this: This debate is about Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Many IDers may be creationists but ID says nothing about a God, a creator. It simply says that what we see points to an Intelligence designing it. No mention of who or what that Intelligence might be. If you claim that the Universe itself is the organizing Intelligence, that belief would be compatible with ID. Yes, I believe in the Biblical account of creation. I do not know exactly when because the Bible does not say, but many Biblical scholars seems to think that they can back compute human genealogy and point to creation as having occurred about 6000 years ago. I don't know, but this date seems to be consistent with other Biblical teachings. Fact is, the observed facts in geology is neutral. It does not say the Earth was coalesced 4.5 billion years ago. This date is simply the interpretation of people when they interpret the facts thru their Darwinian world view filter. In other words, they start with the world view that Darwinian Evolution is True, hence their observed facts must be interpreted as billions year age. I mentioned the Grand Canyon before. It is equally a valid explanation that the Grand Canyon was carved by the great Noah flood. Yet this explanation is rejected in favor of millions of years of erosion of the Colorado river explanation. Why is the later accepted and the former rejected. It is because the explanation is filtered by the world view the geologist have. Jojo - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 1:50 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo, You strike me as having been seduced by the dark side of the Vort Collective and now willing to participate in some of your favorite Off-Topic discussions – including the generation of a few of your own. A good scrappy discussion can occasionally be a refreshing treat for many here, as long as everyone adheres to basic netiquette rules and ad-hominine attacks are kept out of the picture. BTW, why aren’t you prefixing the subject threads with “OT”? * * * I must confess the fact that I have not read the entire thread, so maybe I may have missed the fact that you have already touched on the following points: You give me the impression that you are much more sympathetic to a Creationist perspective - that geological formations like the Grand Canyon were created suddenly, such as from the accounts of “The Great Flood.” Please correct me if I am in error on such matters. What is your explanation for the scientific implications that come out of scientific measurements deduced from radioactive decay, such as carbon dating? I guess I’m trying to assess whether it is your belief that the world was created, in geological terms, very recently (i.e. Genesis) as compared to what is currently the accepted “scientific” POV, that the world coalesced approximately 4.5 billion years ago. BTW, I assume you are aware of the Creation Museum, located down in Kentucky: http://creationmuseum.org/ I’d love to visit the museum. I think it would be a real hoot. Of course, as you might expect, not everyone is in agreement with the conclusions that have been presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc http://whatever.scalzi.com/2007/11/12/your-creation-museum-report/ Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionwork
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
From Jojo Steven, I am relunctantly engaging in these off-topic posts to make a point. Since, you and Jed refuse to moderate your off-topic posts despite my numerous pleas, I am now doing this to make a point and settle a bet with Terry. That there is a double standard that exists in Vortex-L. If there is none and I loose the bet, I take Terry and Jed out to an expensive lunch. That's all. I can't speak for Jed, but as I'm sure you know by now, I don't think I have violated the spirit of Mr. Beaty's Vortex-L rules by occasionally posting Off-Topic discussions - especially if when I am in doubt I prefix the subject thread with OT. This is standard procedure. I'm still puzzled that you have not prefixed your recent posts with OT, since making a point to post Off-Topic discussion is now clearly your objective. Actually, some of your recent comments strike me as someone who feels as if he has a chip on his shoulder. There also seems to be something akin to what I would describe as a martyr-like objective of proving to the Collective that this double-standard for which you perceive has unfairly affected your sensibilities will eventually be revealed in all its true colors by the act of having you done-in, in so-to-speak, by Mr. Beaty removing you from the Collective. You also give me the impression that you might feel disappointed if Mr. Beaty doesn't get around to removing you. Therefore, it would not surprise me if in the following days might try a little harder to make your prediction come true, and as such prove your point. Yes, you may be correct in calling me a Creationist; but one thing you need to realize is this: This debate is about Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Many IDers may be creationists but ID says nothing about a God, a creator. It simply says that what we see points to an Intelligence designing it. No mention of who or what that Intelligence might be. If you claim that the Universe itself is the organizing Intelligence, that belief would be compatible with ID. In case you were curious, as for my own faith: I suspect the Universe is alive and aware. In other words, the Universe is conscious. I seem to be conscious too. Come to think of it, how could I not be conscious, how could we ALL not be conscious if we are all part of a Conscious Living Universe. This may be a subtle point, but if one strips away all the thoughts, assembled concepts, belief systems, and ego for which most of us tend wrap ourselves within day-in and day-out, as if to prove that what we are thinking believing at any moment in time constitutes proof of our very existence, what we are left with is nothing more than pure awareness, an all-inclusive unbounded sense of pure awareness. To me, that sense of pure awareness strikes me as everyone's direct link to the Consciousness of the Universe. When I began to sense this it was simple for me to perceive that we are all part of each other in the most intimate way conceivable. It was also simple for me to realize that what one does unto others, one does just as much to one's self. IOW, it's probably a good idea to follow the Golden Rule. Alas, I continue to mess up on that point, but I keep trying. PS: You state you are engaging in these off-topic posts reluctantly. That’s not the sense I get. This is probably enough babble for one post. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
SVJ wrote: “Come to think of it, how could I not be conscious, how could we ALL not be conscious if we are all part of a Conscious Living Universe.” It’s not a binary thing… it’s a continuum, and the problem is that most are just starting out on the journey to full consciousness! In my study of comparative religions, I always got the sense that one of the lessons that the great spiritual leaders tried to teach was how to become more conscious… -mark From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson [mailto:orionwo...@charter.net] Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 4:04 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From Jojo Steven, I am relunctantly engaging in these off-topic posts to make a point. Since, you and Jed refuse to moderate your off-topic posts despite my numerous pleas, I am now doing this to make a point and settle a bet with Terry. That there is a double standard that exists in Vortex-L. If there is none and I loose the bet, I take Terry and Jed out to an expensive lunch. That's all. I can't speak for Jed, but as I'm sure you know by now, I don't think I have violated the spirit of Mr. Beaty's Vortex-L rules by occasionally posting Off-Topic discussions - especially if when I am in doubt I prefix the subject thread with OT. This is standard procedure. I'm still puzzled that you have not prefixed your recent posts with OT, since making a point to post Off-Topic discussion is now clearly your objective. Actually, some of your recent comments strike me as someone who feels as if he has a chip on his shoulder. There also seems to be something akin to what I would describe as a martyr-like objective of proving to the Collective that this double-standard for which you perceive has unfairly affected your sensibilities will eventually be revealed in all its true colors by the act of having you done-in, in so-to-speak, by Mr. Beaty removing you from the Collective. You also give me the impression that you might feel disappointed if Mr. Beaty doesn't get around to removing you. Therefore, it would not surprise me if in the following days might try a little harder to make your prediction come true, and as such prove your point. Yes, you may be correct in calling me a Creationist; but one thing you need to realize is this: This debate is about Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. And Intelligent Design is NOT Creationism. Many IDers may be creationists but ID says nothing about a God, a creator. It simply says that what we see points to an Intelligence designing it. No mention of who or what that Intelligence might be. If you claim that the Universe itself is the organizing Intelligence, that belief would be compatible with ID. In case you were curious, as for my own faith: I suspect the Universe is alive and aware. In other words, the Universe is conscious. I seem to be conscious too. Come to think of it, how could I not be conscious, how could we ALL not be conscious if we are all part of a Conscious Living Universe. This may be a subtle point, but if one strips away all the thoughts, assembled concepts, belief systems, and ego for which most of us tend wrap ourselves within day-in and day-out, as if to prove that what we are thinking believing at any moment in time constitutes proof of our very existence, what we are left with is nothing more than pure awareness, an all-inclusive unbounded sense of pure awareness. To me, that sense of pure awareness strikes me as everyone's direct link to the Consciousness of the Universe. When I began to sense this it was simple for me to perceive that we are all part of each other in the most intimate way conceivable. It was also simple for me to realize that what one does unto others, one does just as much to one's self. IOW, it's probably a good idea to follow the Golden Rule. Alas, I continue to mess up on that point, but I keep trying. PS: You state you are engaging in these off-topic posts reluctantly. That’s not the sense I get. This is probably enough babble for one post. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
I don't think Darwin pronounced himself on erosion, Jojo. Erosion is a long-observed and understood phenomenon. Ask any farmer, or road builder. The Biblical view requires faith and does not pretend to be scientifically provable. Erosion is based upon physical phenomena. Check out the Chesapeake Bay Watershed model if you are in any doubt about this. Cheers, Lawry On Aug 4, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk of being excommunicated from the field. My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not thehard fact-based science that it claims to be. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much to the confusion of the debate. What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy to defer to them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are talking about the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences. What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery of the field, how is oneto distinguish between an awareness of fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and the specific details of those
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Dave Roberson wrote: With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Yes, system boundaries are of primary importance! Let me cut-n-paste from one of my postings: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg66744.html -- I had the opportunity to work with some competent scientists during grad school at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the Desert Research Institute. it was a wonderful experience, and I would occasionally drop in and chat with a few of the chemists and physicists. Often our conversations drifted to 'fringe' topics like LENR; most were quite open to the possibility, actually. One of the research chemists, Bill Finnegan, had a major gripe with the way they teach science. He asked me to grab a book off his shelf (it was a college text on Thermodynamics), asked me to open it to the Preface, and read it out loud (it was only two paragraphs). I don't remember the section verbatim, but the whole point he wanted me to learn was that there is a **qualifying phrase** which all the Laws of Thermodynamics BEGIN with, especially, the first and second (CoE and increasing Entropy); that phrase is, IN A CLOSED SYSTEM. you know the rest Dr. Finnegan's gripe was that all too often that simple, but all important, phrase was not emphasized enough to make it stick in students' minds. It makes a big difference in their mentality once they get into actual research. And I will continue to remind this Collective of that all important fact. We know about and can easily measure various kinds of energy, but that does not mean that we are aware of and can measure ALL forms of energy. Hence, when someone adamantly relies on CoE, saying that such and such is impossible since it would violate CoE, they are not a scientist in my mind. The good scientists are always very careful with the wording they use, and 'always' and 'never' and 'impossible' are seldom if ever used by them; instead, they use phrases like 'very unlikely', or 'highly improbable'. Those are the minds that were taught proper thermodynamics. Improperly taught science slowly results in scientific dogma. --- So yes, local violations of the laws of thermo are possible, but when the system boundaries are properly defined, those violations will *likely* disappear. -Mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:06 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption as follows. * * *Punctuated equilibrium* *Punctuated equilibrium* (also called *punctuated equilibria*) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called *stasis*. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it *punctuated equilibria*. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-3as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of Epigenesis. Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins. In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through epigenetic expression. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption as follows. * * *Punctuated equilibrium* *Punctuated equilibrium* (also called *punctuated equilibria*) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called *stasis*. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it *punctuated equilibria *. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#cite_note-3as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again which will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. Not true. The genome not only contains future possible expressions of new species but also retains past species that the organism has evolved from. See *Chickenosaurus Rex - Chicken Dinosaur* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9O82J2Zow On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. 2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply die with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection hence Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here. 3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility to the individual. In other words, a trait that confer an increased survival advantage but also causes an increased susceptibility to some other stress will not result in natural selection. For example, a trait that results in an individual to survive a drought in food must not make that same individual be more susceptible to Cold weather. If it does, the chances of the trait being sucessfully passed down commulatively generation after generation is minimized and the survival of that individual will not be any better statistically compared to another individual without that mutated trait.
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Renowned paleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct a dinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vessels and soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's taking living descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them to reactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to make a Chickenosaurus. *Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8feature=related On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again which will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. Not true. The genome not only contains future possible expressions of new species but also retains past species that the organism has evolved from. See *Chickenosaurus Rex - Chicken Dinosaur* http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9O82J2Zow On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. 2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply die with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection hence Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here. 3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Darn, it is already a bit scary hiking in the mountains with the bears and snakes to deal with. Now, I guess it will not be long before I will have to run from these nasty critters. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 2:25 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Renownedpaleontologist Jack Horner has spent his career trying to reconstruct adinosaur. He's found fossils with extraordinarily well-preserved blood vesselsand soft tissues, but never intact DNA. So, in a new approach, he's takingliving descendants of the dinosaur (chickens) and genetically engineering them toreactivate ancestral traits — including teeth, tails, and even hands — to makea Chickenosaurus. Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8feature=related On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: The trait or change must bepermanent. In other words, the changemust not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be additive and hencecan not result in a complex organ like an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations andthen that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again whichwill result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. Not true. The genome not only contains futurepossible expressions of new species but also retains past species that the organismhas evolved from. See Chickenosaurus Rex - Chicken Dinosaur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9O82J2Zow On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. 2. The change or the new trait
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation results in a small change or small feature. If the change is big, there must be some other mechanism or directed Intelligence behind that change. Darwin recognized this and said so in his book. 2. The change or the new trait or feature must confer to that individual a survival advantage. Otherwise, that useful trait will simply die with that individual. A trait that may be useful but does not confer a survival advantage is a trait that does not result in natural selection hence Darwinian Evolution is NOT in operation here. 3. The trait must not cause any impairment or susceptibility to the individual. In other words, a trait that confer an increased survival advantage but also causes an increased susceptibility to some other stress will not result in natural selection. For example, a trait that results in an individual to survive a drought in food must not make that same individual be more susceptible to Cold weather. If it does, the chances of the trait being sucessfully passed down commulatively generation after generation is minimized and the survival of that individual will not be any better statistically compared to another individual without that mutated trait. 4. The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
7. The change or trait must not affect an individual's reproductive ability. If there is no reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence no Darwinian Evolution. Not true With the ambiguity in the definitions of the concept of species notwithstanding, even when species have diverged, reproduction between species is still possible. Only when sufficient genetic differences between two species have grown wide enough, that is, a wide enough divergence down the evolutionary path, is reproduction prohibitive. The assertion that H. sapiens (and/or H. sapiens sapiens) could not have interbred with H. erectus, because they are different species is invalid. If they could have produced fertile offspring, then they weren't really different species. These fairly common misconceptions proceed from a misunderstanding of the 'biological species concept', which makes species distinctions based on fertility. There is NO criterion that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. There is NO criterion that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring. The word species, however, is sometimes used simply as a name for a morphologically distinguishable form. This is especially true in paleontology, in which a single evolving lineage (gene pool) may be assigned several names for successive, phenotypically different forms. For example, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are names for different, distinguishable stages in the same evolving lineage. They are chrono-species, rather than separate biological species. The two species names do not imply that speciation (bifurcation into two gene pools) occurred: in fact it probably did not in this case. Genetic studies have shown, erectus could interbreed with sapiens: Note, however, that some people also say erectus was a distinct taxon. In fact, Rightmire, a recognized expert on erectus, says (The Evolution of Homo Erectus, Cambridge, 1990) they were a distinct species It is interesting to see why there is disagreement on the subject. Wolpoff, and others, compare the early African and Asian skulls with the most modern ones and show that there was an increase in cranial capacity, and a morphological tendency toward some sapiens characteristics. BUT, those recent skulls are the very ones are hybrid specimens! Rightmire excludes the late, Southeast Asian skulls from Ngandong for very good reasons, and shows that the rest of the series reveals no statistically significant development toward becoming modern human. That is even with including later, African skulls that show some interbreeding with sapiens radiating out of Eurasia. When you get up to the recent African material, which shows significant sapiens influence, the afrocentrists claim those aren't erectus, but 'early sapiens'. For instance, they call the Herto skulls H. sapiens idaltu. A final consideration is the distinguishing characteristics that differentiate the various Homo species. If they were separated by potentially incompatible mutations, then there might have been diminished fertility between those species. However, it appears they have been distinguished by neoteny: ancestral forms were succeeded by juvenilized versions of themselves. While the effects of neoteny (such as increased intelligence, delayed maturation, progressive gracilization, and a diminution of some ancestral-adult characteristics) may be profound, the genetic changes are subtle. There seems to be little or no impediment to fertility, as the new type must have been fertile with the parent species in order to survive. Accordingly, the entire genus Homo has probably been inter-fertile, just as the genus Canis is. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
LET ME BEGIN with a general 'adhominim' pejorative statement: The I AM/Infinite All Mind has a 'thing' forNINCOMPOOPS, He/She excreted so many of them; of which I am numero uno. . .(or not) so now that we have 'that' out of the way. . . ) ***THIS IS EXCELLENT TAOISM*** oldest 'book of wisdom' known to mankind:HOWEVER 'Book of JOB' actually speaks of ALOSAURUS-Brontasaurus cohabititing 'Job's' environment as well as some other saurian sea-beasties; and 'Job(e)' states those details as a mere evironmental happenstance of his times. TAOISM(I like)***From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. . .me-(ANYTHING can evolve; but does a 'pattern of Trandimensional-Thought-M-Brane nudge the 'evolutionary momentum?' ***Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance.. . . . . .me-(but is even 'random-chance' an ubiquitous OMNI-PATTERN?) FROM JOB(e) ON: ***The way modern theological thought handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: ***Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. Then IF All that Is (nomatter what the 'complex' or 'variation-matrix' of 'physics')which is likely MORE EXOTIC THAN WE ARE EVEN CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO IMAGINE; either 'ALL' is a RELATIVELY RANDOM CHAOS; or IF 'it-ALL' is the OMNI-SENTIENT self-aware/ubiquitous 'Infinite Pattern Matrix' and (bowing to traditional term NOT my favorite eg. 'God') THUS---Everything-that-is IS GOD HAPPENING. Rhetorical sub-CONCLUSION: 'Sentient Volitional Pattern Matrix' is intrinisic to ALL ENERGY which pretty much includes Infinity-Aeternity; (Inifinite-All //Transdimensional-Space(s) Virtual-No Time/All TimeVirtual No Distance aka SPOOKY ACTION @ A DISTANCE yadda yadda. HOWEVER: Taoism's tenent of 'pregnant omni-potentiality of NOTHINGNESS' really posits 'nothingness' as the INFINITE ENERGY MEDIUM. Call this an 'Infinite Omnidimensional Sentient Carrier Wave' and this pretty much is INCLUSIVE of ANY EVERY NOTION that we can conceive of as being SIMULTANEOUSLY HARMONICALLY CO-OPERANT. AND IF we are all 'sentient terminals' on/of the 'Sentient-Carrier-ALL-M-Brane-Wave' then we are ALL OF US getting at least a 'piece of this.' THUSLY: This is an 'argument' that we 'win' by 'agreement'. . . which has 'nothing' to do with COWARDLY COMPROMISE. . . in short: this 'compromise' is NOT capitulation; but rather; a conjoining of swords in a 'One for All/All for One Pact.' Ciao Brothers No Fallacy with Darwin Really: Chuck D. just had the 'nerve' to start a really 'healthy' thought-ball rolling. . . and we are Indeed CO-CREATING our 'Futures/Destinies' as sentients part of a MACRO-CREATIVE SENTIENT MEDIUM I enjoy calling the 'I AM-Infinite All Mind'. . . Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? 10. The change must enable the individual to outsurvive other individuals in his group. It is not enough to merely allow the individual to survive, but it must cause that individual to outsurvive others. If it is not outsurviving other individuals, the change will merely get diluted in the gene pool and lost. In the next post, I will define the difference between Microevolution (aka Adaptation) and Macroevolution (aka Darwinian Evolution). Enjoy Jojo
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from another snow flake? In the end, the crystals itself are all products randomly created. There is a concept called Specified Complexity wherein one has a mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is shaped like an I. You can not immediately say that this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no specified complexity. The information is not complex and specified enough. However, when you see I love Lucy written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified complexity, one can say that I love Lucy is specified complex while the letter I while it contains information, is complex but not specified complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random processes. Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was designed by an Intelligence. But once again, I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss specified complexity in a later post. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes given enough time Darwinian Evolution can happen. BUT, did the Earth really had Infinite time to accomplish the evolution of a Human. With all the complexity of the human body, its structure, its chemical composition, the cells structures, the millions of chemical processes, the cognitive abitlities, etc, it is clear that what is separating a human from a single cell are trillions upon trillions of small incremental changes. Is 4 billion years really enough to evolve a human? (Age of the Earth) I don't think so, not even 16 Billion years (the age of the big bang universe.) If human evolved within this time, the evolutionary process must be occuring at such an incredible pace, enough for a human to grow another feature within the period of our recorded history. Yet we find no such permanent change or mutation; (x-men hollywood fallacy aside.) No my friend, Darwinian Evolution is not observed because it is NOT happening. Jojo PS. As for God putting evolution is place. That idea is called Theistic Evolution. It is a very sad sad attempt to accomodate a faulty idea into the Biblical narrative of creation. A sad compromise that serves neither side. Needless to say, I consider Theistic Evolution more fallacious than Darwinian Evolution. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Crystals are formed through the maximization of disorder. Designer materials: Entropy (*Entropy* is the thermodynamic property toward quilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation) can lead to order, paving the route to nanostructures. Entropy is a consequence of the expansion of the universe. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-entropy-paving-route-nanostructures.html Glotzer explains that this isn't really disorder creating order—entropy needs its image updated. Instead, she describes it as a measure of possibilities. If you could turn off gravity and empty a bag full of dice into a jar, the floating dice would point every which way. However, if you keep adding dice, eventually space becomes so limited that the dice have more options to align face-to-face. The same thing happens to the nanoparticles, which are so small that they feel entropy's influence more strongly than gravity's. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from another snow flake? In the end, the crystals itself are all products randomly created. There is a concept called Specified Complexity wherein one has a mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is shaped like an I. You can not immediately say that this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no specified complexity. The information is not complex and specified enough. However, when you see I love Lucy written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified complexity, one can say that I love Lucy is specified complex while the letter I while it contains information, is complex but not specified complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random processes. Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was designed by an Intelligence. But once again, I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss specified complexity in a later post. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104638.htm How quickly can new species arise? In as little as 6,000 years, according to a study of Australian sea stars.
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes, I am familiar with the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium. It is an attempt to explain why even after over a century of intense fossil digging, we have not found many of the supposedly transitional species. Gould of course thinks that that is because evolution occurs in rapid spurts and therefore the transitional species did not get a chance to be preserved in fossils. While Gould seems to have plug one leaky hole in Darwinian Theory, he opened up a bigger leak in the theory. How does he explain the mechansim for the rapid changes and rapid appearance of new features? Even in a geographically enclosed population, as he presupposes, the rate of evolution is still governed by mutation rates and reproductive rates. Remember, there is no explanation for the spontaneous appearance of a complex feature. Complex features can not be explained by Natural Selection. A feature must be chosen by natural selection, hence, it must ultimately be dependent of reproductive rates. This bears repeating, We need to realize that Natural Selection can not operate within an Individual within a generation to create complex features. Natural Selection takes generations to achieve its magic of creating a complex feature. There just isn't enough time for all this magic to have occured. If Natural Selection can not be used, What is Gould's mechanism for explaining the rapid emergence of new and complex features? The appearance of complex features can only be explained by a Directed Process; an intelligence behind directing the direction of the change. It is a simple thing for Gould to hypothesize Punctuated Equilibrium; the devil is in the details. So, in fact Punctuated Equilibrium is a totally different theory than Darwinian Evolution. Hence, we can not use Darwinian Evolution concepts to defend and support Punctuated Equilibrium. PE has to stand on its own and explain how features occur without Natural Selection. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 12:29 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption as follows. Punctuated equilibrium Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
LIVING CRYSTALS: It is intriquing that certain 'virus's in the dormant phase/ are identified as CRYSTALINE STRUCTURES. AND DNA is likewise a CRYSTALINE LATTICE mechanism. . . crystals are cool. . . EVOLVING CRYSTALS. . . ?By whatmechanistic momentum should a Crystal evolve? From: jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 05:39:47 +0800 The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from another snow flake? In the end, the crystals itself are all products randomly created. There is a concept called Specified Complexity wherein one has a mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is shaped like an I. You can not immediately say that this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no specified complexity. The information is not complex and specified enough. However, when you see I love Lucy written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified complexity, one can say that I love Lucy is specified complex while the letter I while it contains information, is complex but not specified complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random processes. Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was designed by an Intelligence. But once again, I am getting ahead of myself. We will discuss specified complexity in a later post. Jojo - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 11:05 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Jojo I think that your statement that no random process can increase the information content of a system is too broad. The formation of a crystal from a vat of molten material seems to be a system that takes the random motion of the hot atoms as its input and then a directing force leads to the final crystal structure. Entropy is increased for the overall system by the release of heat of fusion, but the local region becomes less random. With this type of process in mind, I think that the choice of system boundaries become critical. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 8:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, That is why I say Darwinian Evolution is dead, a totally discredited and fallacious idea.Darwin did not know about DNA, genes, cell structures, RNA and others. Had he known the structure of DNA for instance, he would have concluded that slow random mutation can not explain the existence of DNA. Why, because random mutation can not explain the existence of Information within our DNA. There is no random process that will result in an arrangement that increases the Information Content of a system. Random processes results in entrophy, and entrophy is the opposite of Information and order. But I am getting ahead of myself. I will discuss DNA information in a future post. - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 8:45 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Recent discoveries show that Darwin's ideas were an over simplification of genetics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/ghostgenes.shtml T
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain its existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes. If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough to totally discredit Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of Epigenesis. Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins. In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through epigenetic expression. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption as follows. Punctuated equilibrium Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
LOL ... Axil, my friend, you should know better than to swallow this joke. Please do not take this as an insult but you should know that these kinds of things should only be for the comsumption of the uninitiated and uninformed YouTube generation. I raise chickens in my hacienda here, and I've seen far gross mutations than these. Long claws does NOT explain a Rex gene; its simply a physical defect. I've seen a whole clutch of chicks with a second protuding claw, like a second thumb. NO, this is not Darwinian Evolution in action, this is a physical defect, a genetic disease. All those chickens died without leaving progeny. Natural Selection did indeed take care of them. Back to my point that you are contending. Yes, for natural selection to explain the appearance of a complex feature, the minute changes leading to that complex feature must be permanent and it must confer a survival advantage each and every step of the way. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 2:14 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions The trait or change must be permanent. In other words, the change must not revert back or disappear once the stress is removed. If it does, it will not be additive and hence can not result in a complex organ like an eye. This will result in natural selection only for a few generations and then that advantage dissappears and other individuals can compete again which will result in a dilution of that trait in the general population. Not true. The genome not only contains future possible expressions of new species but also retains past species that the organism has evolved from. See Chickenosaurus Rex - Chicken Dinosaur http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j9O82J2Zow On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin then takes this idea of Natural Selection one step further and hypothesizes that this natural selection process is the means by which variouis species emerge. Hence species A mutates, survives, passes on its traits, then after several generations. becomes another species B - hence the term The origin of Species. The nature or origin or mechanism of the mutation was unknown to Darwin. DNA was not discovered in his lifetime. Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. In other words, Darwinian Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. Darwinian Evolution implies the following: 1. The change must be small and minor and slow in an individual. The mutation
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Panspermia releases evolution from the timeframe restrictions that earth places on it; That is the time frame for the evolution of life as beeing restricted only to the time when conditions on the earth was conducive to life. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the mechanisms of evolution formed before the earth existed and life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile archaea, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance. In addition, you underestimate how rapidly that life can evolve. For example, bacterial pathogens evolve so nimbly that the drug industry cannot find a way to kill them given their most earnest efforts to do so. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes given enough time Darwinian Evolution can happen. BUT, did the Earth really had Infinite time to accomplish the evolution of a Human. With all the complexity of the human body, its structure, its chemical composition, the cells structures, the millions of chemical processes, the cognitive abitlities, etc, it is clear that what is separating a human from a single cell are trillions upon trillions of small incremental changes. Is 4 billion years really enough to evolve a human? (Age of the Earth) I don't think so, not even 16 Billion years (the age of the big bang universe.) If human evolved within this time, the evolutionary process must be occuring at such an incredible pace, enough for a human to grow another feature within the period of our recorded history. Yet we find no such permanent change or mutation; (x-men hollywood fallacy aside.) No my friend, Darwinian Evolution is not observed because it is NOT happening. Jojo PS. As for God putting evolution is place. That idea is called Theistic Evolution. It is a very sad sad attempt to accomodate a faulty idea into the Biblical narrative of creation. A sad compromise that serves neither side. Needless to say, I consider Theistic Evolution more fallacious than Darwinian Evolution. - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope that if you decide to engage in this discussion, that you would keep the exchange civil. I will not initiate an Ad hominem attack unless attacked first. Let's discuss your ideas and why you absolutely believe in Darwinian Evolution and I'll discuss my belief in Intelligent Design. But if you want to exchange insults, I can surely accomodate you. What is Darwinian Evolution? Darwinian Evolution is the theory of evolution espoused by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species. Later he wrote The Descent of Man specifically to address man's evolution from lower life forms. The basic Tenet of Darwinian Evolution is a random mutation process that results in features that allow an individual animal or plant life to survive a stress in its environment. When it survives, it passes down this Trait to its progeny thereby allowing its progeny to successfully live in this new stressful environment thereby passing this trait down to its progeny also. The trait enables the individual to survive hence the term Survival of the Fittest, or Natural Selection. Darwin
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
GENETIC MEMORY: This is 'not' such an off-the-wall proposition as once thought. IF: Experiential Inputs are bio-mechanistically inbedded into our Reproductive DNA apparatus THAT LEAD to SUPERIOR adaptation, indeed areREAL. . . then maybe Darwin, although crude, did possess the grain of a truely salient insight. POSIT: Origin DNA is 'not' random-accident because 'random' does NOT mean 'accident;' (panspermia anyone? or AEXO-M-Brane-panspermia?) BUT NEITHER is spurious the notion that DNA-Experiential Progression-Development as EVOLUTIONARY MOMENTUM is 'also' operant. Maybe 'either,' or 'nor,' exclusivism is merely a 'Red Herring-as-basis-for-argument;' and HARMONIC adaptive INCLUSIVITY is the logic-train that should be the most 'cogent-adaptation' to be pursued. . . From: jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2012 06:11:04 +0800 Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain its existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes. If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough to totally discredit Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of Epigenesis. Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins. In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through epigenetic expression. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Darwinian Evolution presupposes that the mutation or the change is small, and the mutation process in passed down only via the mechanism of natural selection. In other words, a new trait must not be so complex and the change so huge as to cause people to suspect that there might be some directed process, or an Intelligence causing the change; other than natural selection that would cause the change. Evolution says that it is impossible to evolve a complex organ like a fully developed human eye in a single generation. The development of a complex organ must take place slowly, one minor change at a time, one minor change per generation. This also implies that the minor changes must be commulative, or additive. One small minor change within each generation that adds up generation after generation until it becomes an organ as complex as an eye. I reject the basis of your argument. The above is an archaic assumption as follows. Punctuated equilibrium Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another. Punctuated equilibrium is commonly contrasted against the theory of phyletic gradualism, which states that evolution generally occurs uniformly and by the steady and gradual transformation of whole lineages (called anagenesis). In this view, evolution is seen as generally smooth and continuous. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria. Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation, I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research. Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is virtually nonexistent in the fossil record, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Human DNA holds far more capacity to adapt then can be expressed in any given individual. This DNA is like a large toolkit, where tools can lay dormant until needed. For example, in the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what looks like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t infect everybody. Some people are simply born immune. It’s all down to their particular genetic make-up and researchers are beginning to understand where that genetic protection comes from. Stephen O’Brien from the US National Cancer Institute has discovered that a mutant form of one particular gene, called CCR5, confers protection against HIV. That same gene variant may well have arisen in Europe, as a direct response to the Black Death. Genetic distribution The idea comes from a careful analysis of where in the world this particular gene variant shows up. According to the researchers the mutation is absent in Africa and throughout East Asian populations and evident in varying amounts across Europe. O’Brien explains: ‘It was present as high as 15% in Scandinavia; it was less in Europe, about 10% in France, Germany and England. Further south it was 5% and in Saudi Arabia and Sub-Saharan Africa it was 0%.’ Believing that this ‘genetic drift’ was probably not random, the scientists looked to their history books to find out when this mutation was last prevalent in human history and what conditions may have favoured it. The Black Death Using the tools of molecular population genetics to identify exactly when the allele was last in force, the researchers were able to estimate that the gene variant was under a strong selection advantage approximately 700 years ago. This period coincided with the period in history when bubonic plague was sweeping through Europe. The Black Death, as it was known, started in Italy in 1347 and during the next three years it moved across Europe, killing perhaps as many as three-quarters of the people it infected. The disease itself is thought to be bubonic plague, which is caused by a bacterium carried on the backs of rats. It can also be passed directly from human to human, which can result in death occurring within three days. The Black Death was so named as sufferers displayed a range of symptoms including the lymph nodes swelling with pus and breaking the blood vessels under the skin. This caused internal bleeding and turned the skin black. This outbreak of the Black Death lasted for over 300 years, killing at least 25 million people until it disappeared in 1670. However bubonic plague is a disease that still shows up every year in thousands of cases throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas. Bacterial similarities Even through the researchers can not be certain that bubonic plague drove the mutated gene to such a high level, the study has unearthed some intriguing similarities between Aids and the Black Death. O’Brien explains: ‘There are hundreds of different tissues that viruses or bacteria can infect. Both HIV and yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes Black Death, interestingly attack exactly the same tissues.’ ‘The fact that precisely the same cells are the targets of this virus, the fact that the timing of this mutation is exactly when there was Black Death maybe indirect, but I think that they are telling coincidences that make the Black Death the most likely candidate for selective pressure.’ O’Brien now plans to work with scientists in Paris to establish if the presence of CCR5 in mice will lead them to be resistant to plague infection. Meanwhile it is hoped that this research could have implications for new approaches to HIV- Aids treatments. Which could be good news for those in areas of the world, such as Africa, where levels of CCR5 in its mutant form are known to be low. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain its existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes. If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough to totally discredit Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions The genome of an organism is more complex and adaptive then the creationist’s arguments assume and are embodied in the genetic concept of Epigenesis. Though the theory seems an obvious fact to us in today's genetic age, however, the theory was not given much credence in former times because of the dominance for many centuries of Creationist theories of life's origins. In the same way that a stem cell can form many cell types: skin, heart, nerve… and so on, so an organism can adapt to its environment through epigenetic expression. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes, you have identified the basic crux of the problem. That is the definition of a species. Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much to the confusion of the debate. Maybe, we should define a species based on their DNA makeup. It won't be long now when we will have the ability to very rapidly and cheaply sequence each and every DNA for all animals and plants. When we have such a catalog, we can begin to recatergorized into a more specific and accurate definition of a species. Such a Genetic Definition of a species should help much. All discussion of what a species is is fraught with ambiguity until we can nail down what a species is based on the one thing that is has that differentiates it - its DNA. So, to answer you point - I cant't, I can't without intruducing more ambiguity. So, I'll leave it at this for now. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 4:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions 7. The change or trait must not affect an individual's reproductive ability. If there is no reproduction, there is no natural selection, hence no Darwinian Evolution. Not true With the ambiguity in the definitions of the concept of species notwithstanding, even when species have diverged, reproduction between species is still possible. Only when sufficient genetic differences between two species have grown wide enough, that is, a wide enough divergence down the evolutionary path, is reproduction prohibitive. The assertion that H. sapiens (and/or H. sapiens sapiens) could not have interbred with H. erectus, because they are different species is invalid. If they could have produced fertile offspring, then they weren't really different species. These fairly common misconceptions proceed from a misunderstanding of the 'biological species concept', which makes species distinctions based on fertility. There is NO criterion that says (as is commonly believed) that if two populations can interbreed they are the SAME species. There is NO criterion that says that two distinct species CAN'T interbreed. Consider the example of wolves, coyotes and dogs: three distinct species that can interbreed. In fact, all species of the genus Canis can mate and produce fertile offspring. The word species, however, is sometimes used simply as a name for a morphologically distinguishable form. This is especially true in paleontology, in which a single evolving lineage (gene pool) may be assigned several names for successive, phenotypically different forms. For example, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are names for different, distinguishable stages in the same evolving lineage. They are chrono-species, rather than separate biological species. The two species names do not imply that speciation (bifurcation into two gene pools) occurred: in fact it probably did not in this case. Genetic studies have shown, erectus could interbreed with sapiens: Note, however, that some people also say erectus was a distinct taxon. In fact, Rightmire, a recognized expert on erectus, says (The Evolution of Homo Erectus, Cambridge, 1990) they were a distinct species It is interesting to see why there is disagreement on the subject. Wolpoff, and others, compare the early African and Asian skulls with the most modern ones and show that there was an increase in cranial capacity, and a morphological tendency toward some sapiens characteristics. BUT, those recent skulls are the very ones are hybrid specimens! Rightmire excludes the late, Southeast Asian skulls from Ngandong for very good reasons, and shows that the rest of the series reveals no statistically significant development toward becoming modern human. That is even with including later, African skulls that show some interbreeding with sapiens radiating out of Eurasia. When you get up to the recent African material, which shows significant sapiens influence, the afrocentrists claim those aren't erectus, but 'early sapiens'. For instance, they call the Herto skulls H. sapiens idaltu. A final consideration is the distinguishing characteristics that differentiate the various Homo species. If they were separated by potentially incompatible mutations, then there might have been diminished fertility between those species. However, it appears they have been distinguished by neoteny: ancestral forms were succeeded by juvenilized versions of themselves. While the effects of neoteny (such as increased intelligence, delayed maturation, progressive gracilization, and a diminution of some ancestral-adult characteristics) may be profound, the genetic changes are subtle. There seems to be little or no impediment to fertility, as the new type must have been fertile with the parent
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Yes, DNA is an amazing thing. I am not disputing what you are saying below. What I am disputing is your attribution of it to Darwinian Evolution. I will be explaining the difference between Mircroevolution (Adaptation) vs. Macroevolution (Darwinian Evolution). Maybe after I explain it, the difference will be clearer and I would have answered your contention below. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:44 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Human DNA holds far more capacity to adapt then can be expressed in any given individual. This DNA is like a large toolkit, where tools can lay dormant until needed. For example, in the battle against Aids, scientists have acquired what looks like a potent new weapon. HIV, the virus that causes Aids, doesn’t infect everybody. Some people are simply born immune. It’s all down to their particular genetic make-up and researchers are beginning to understand where that genetic protection comes from. Stephen O’Brien from the US National Cancer Institute has discovered that a mutant form of one particular gene, called CCR5, confers protection against HIV. That same gene variant may well have arisen in Europe, as a direct response to the Black Death. Genetic distribution The idea comes from a careful analysis of where in the world this particular gene variant shows up. According to the researchers the mutation is absent in Africa and throughout East Asian populations and evident in varying amounts across Europe. O’Brien explains: ‘It was present as high as 15% in Scandinavia; it was less in Europe, about 10% in France, Germany and England. Further south it was 5% and in Saudi Arabia and Sub-Saharan Africa it was 0%.’ Believing that this ‘genetic drift’ was probably not random, the scientists looked to their history books to find out when this mutation was last prevalent in human history and what conditions may have favoured it. The Black Death Using the tools of molecular population genetics to identify exactly when the allele was last in force, the researchers were able to estimate that the gene variant was under a strong selection advantage approximately 700 years ago. This period coincided with the period in history when bubonic plague was sweeping through Europe. The Black Death, as it was known, started in Italy in 1347 and during the next three years it moved across Europe, killing perhaps as many as three-quarters of the people it infected. The disease itself is thought to be bubonic plague, which is caused by a bacterium carried on the backs of rats. It can also be passed directly from human to human, which can result in death occurring within three days. The Black Death was so named as sufferers displayed a range of symptoms including the lymph nodes swelling with pus and breaking the blood vessels under the skin. This caused internal bleeding and turned the skin black. This outbreak of the Black Death lasted for over 300 years, killing at least 25 million people until it disappeared in 1670. However bubonic plague is a disease that still shows up every year in thousands of cases throughout Africa, Asia and the Americas. Bacterial similarities Even through the researchers can not be certain that bubonic plague drove the mutated gene to such a high level, the study has unearthed some intriguing similarities between Aids and the Black Death. O’Brien explains: ‘There are hundreds of different tissues that viruses or bacteria can infect. Both HIV and yersinia pestis, the bacteria that causes Black Death, interestingly attack exactly the same tissues.’ ‘The fact that precisely the same cells are the targets of this virus, the fact that the timing of this mutation is exactly when there was Black Death maybe indirect, but I think that they are telling coincidences that make the Black Death the most likely candidate for selective pressure.’ O’Brien now plans to work with scientists in Paris to establish if the presence of CCR5 in mice will lead them to be resistant to plague infection. Meanwhile it is hoped that this research could have implications for new approaches to HIV- Aids treatments. Which could be good news for those in areas of the world, such as Africa, where levels of CCR5 in its mutant form are known to be low. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes, our genone (DNA) is complex, such that it is impossible to explain its existence as a series of random accumulations of minute changes. If anything, the presence of Information within our DNA should be enough to totally discredit Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 1:17 AM
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Ah Yes, the We were created by Aliens argument. Panspermia does not solve the problem. It simply shifts the problem somewhere else. There is an issue of Abiogenesis - how life can form from non-life via random processes. Currently, the biggest problem for Darwinian Evolutionists is to explain how the first life occured. Pansperinia simply transfers the problem of Abiogenesis to another location in the Universe. It does not solve it. One is still faced with the 16 billion year old universe problem. Is the universe old enough for biogenesis to have occured whether here or somewhere else? Based on our current knowledge of biological processes, DNA, physical laws and probabilities; the answer seems to be a resounding NO. I will be discussing the Abiogenesis problem in a latter post. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:26 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Panspermia releases evolution from the timeframe restrictions that earth places on it; That is the time frame for the evolution of life as beeing restricted only to the time when conditions on the earth was conducive to life. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the mechanisms of evolution formed before the earth existed and life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile archaea, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance. In addition, you underestimate how rapidly that life can evolve. For example, bacterial pathogens evolve so nimbly that the drug industry cannot find a way to kill them given their most earnest efforts to do so. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes given enough time Darwinian Evolution can happen. BUT, did the Earth really had Infinite time to accomplish the evolution of a Human. With all the complexity of the human body, its structure, its chemical composition, the cells structures, the millions of chemical processes, the cognitive abitlities, etc, it is clear that what is separating a human from a single cell are trillions upon trillions of small incremental changes. Is 4 billion years really enough to evolve a human? (Age of the Earth) I don't think so, not even 16 Billion years (the age of the big bang universe.) If human evolved within this time, the evolutionary process must be occuring at such an incredible pace, enough for a human to grow another feature within the period of our recorded history. Yet we find no such permanent change or mutation; (x-men hollywood fallacy aside.) No my friend, Darwinian Evolution is not observed because it is NOT happening. Jojo PS. As for God putting evolution is place. That idea is called Theistic Evolution. It is a very sad sad attempt to accomodate a faulty idea into the Biblical narrative of creation. A sad compromise that serves neither side. Needless to say, I consider Theistic Evolution more fallacious than Darwinian Evolution. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have done it. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:27 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello gang, In honor of my bet with Terry, this is my first post on the Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution. Before I continue, I would like to lay the ground work and define a few basic terms that we will be using in my series of posts. Hopefully, people read this post so that I do not have to redefine my terms repeatedly. I do hope Jed engages me in a Debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. Maybe I'll learn something. I hope
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
The single most advanced adaptive Evolutionary Mechanism to surface in any organism is THOUGHT, INTROSPECTION, INSIGHT that lead (hopefully) to successfully adaptive creative behavioral alterations relative to environment; whether social environment /or physical environment /or reproductive environment. With this little 'evolutionary skill' then the more GROSS ANATOMICAL VARIATIONS along the lines of X-Men etc. are comical maladaptive mutation. BUT THOUGHT: Think this thought: Infinity-AexoTransdimensional Space as a SENTIENT THOUGHT MATRIX.(A. Einstein) THOUGHT MALADAPTATION: Finding 'label's like DARWINIAN EVOLUTION /or Theistic Evolution tend toward a type of EXCLUSIVISTIC-COMPARTMENTALIZATION in order to NOT THINK. And it would seem 'evolutionarily-maladaptive rather to psycho-phobically DELETE ENTIRE INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXES from consideration. And this faux-pas has not-muchto do with analytical thinking. . . to be in the Congo at night and dismiss the concept of LION as merely an annoying intrusion to ignore can be maladaptively fatal. . . I have seen some ancient documents that I once thought were 'theistic mumbo-jumbo' that I realized later were Pure Exotic Physics. This might lead us to the consideration that some planetary paroxism-trauma at some juncture in our quasi-recent past createda collective 'amnesia-loss-of-knowledge' that were are just now beginning to recapitulate. Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 18:26:22 -0400 Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From: janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Panspermia releases evolution from the timeframe restrictions that earth places on it; That is the time frame for the evolution of life as beeing restricted only to the time when conditions on the earth was conducive to life. Panspermia is the hypothesis that the mechanisms of evolution formed before the earth existed and life exists throughout the Universe, distributed by meteoroids, asteroids and planetoids. Panspermia proposes that life forms that can survive the effects of space, such as extremophile archaea, become trapped in debris that is ejected into space after collisions between planets that harbor life and Small Solar System Bodies (SSSB). Bacteria may travel dormant for an extended amount of time before colliding randomly with other planets or intermingling with protoplanetary disks. If met with ideal conditions on a new planet's surfaces, the bacteria become active and the process of evolution begins. Panspermia is not meant to address how life began, just the method that may cause its sustenance. In addition, you underestimate how rapidly that life can evolve. For example, bacterial pathogens evolve so nimbly that the drug industry cannot find a way to kill them given their most earnest efforts to do so. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Yes given enough time Darwinian Evolution can happen. BUT, did the Earth really had Infinite time to accomplish the evolution of a Human. With all the complexity of the human body, its structure, its chemical composition, the cells structures, the millions of chemical processes, the cognitive abitlities, etc, it is clear that what is separating a human from a single cell are trillions upon trillions of small incremental changes. Is 4 billion years really enough to evolve a human? (Age of the Earth) I don't think so, not even 16 Billion years (the age of the big bang universe.) If human evolved within this time, the evolutionary process must be occuring at such an incredible pace, enough for a human to grow another feature within the period of our recorded history. Yet we find no such permanent change or mutation; (x-men hollywood fallacy aside.) No my friend, Darwinian Evolution is not observed because it is NOT happening. Jojo PS. As for God putting evolution is place. That idea is called Theistic Evolution. It is a very sad sad attempt to accomodate a faulty idea into the Biblical narrative of creation. A sad compromise that serves neither side. Needless to say, I consider Theistic Evolution more fallacious than Darwinian Evolution. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 3:09 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions From first principles of infinite time and random fluctuations of nothingness, humans can evolve. Said in simple terms, given enough time, the human species can come into existence as a result of random chance. The way modern theological though handles this sort of argument in terms of intelligent design: Since God’s plan made infinite time and random fluctuations possible, so God rightly gets credit for all the possibilities that these concepts engender; if it has happened, then God must have
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Terry, once again this ambiguity is caused by our flawed definition of what a species is. Yes, there are changes within a species, it's called Microevolution or Adaptation. But Macroevolution or Darwinian Evolution (changing from species to another) is a discredited idea. I contend that if you examine the DNA of the supposedly different species of sea stars, you will find that they belong to the same species as far as their DNA makeup is concerned. This is microevolution or adaptation in action, not Darwinian Evolution. We need to be specific and rigoruous. We can no longer afford to naively say that every evolution we see is due to Darwinian Evolution process. Jojo - Original Message - From: Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120724104638.htm How quickly can new species arise? In as little as 6,000 years, according to a study of Australian sea stars.
RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
JoJo wrote: It won't be long now when we will have the ability to very rapidly and cheaply sequence each and every DNA for all animals and plants. Already here. http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/39 image001.png
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Consider the following situation: Take a random letter generator and begin to fill in the squares of a block of 10 letters. With a fast computer, it will not take long to have generated almost every word in the English dictionary. Many of the words would certainly be classified as information since they are commonly used for communication. One could theoretically write short sentences in a similar manner that make sense to anyone reading them. I am sure you recall the million monkeys with word processors trick. The end result is certainly a form of information unless you intentionally restrict the definition of information to exclude anything that is generated by random processes. Information is added by this process if for instance a sentence appears that states that Tomorrow it will be cloudy and cold. We did not know ahead of time what the weather will be tomorrow, but our randomly generated sentence may be correct. To us, this is new information. I suspect that there are similar natural phenomena that generate information. It is unfair to use the origin of these processes as a technique to exclude their outputs by definition. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Aug 3, 2012 7:02 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Yes, this may be true, but I think the basic question you need to answer is: Does this process add information? No random process can create information. That appears to be self-evident. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Crystals are formed through the maximization of disorder. Designer materials: Entropy (Entropy is the thermodynamic property toward quilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation) can lead to order, paving the route to nanostructures. Entropy is a consequence of the expansion of the universe. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-entropy-paving-route-nanostructures.html Glotzer explains that this isn't really disorder creating order—entropy needs its image updated. Instead, she describes it as a measure of possibilities. If you could turn off gravity and empty a bag full of dice into a jar, the floating dice would point every which way. However, if you keep adding dice, eventually space becomes so limited that the dice have more options to align face-to-face. The same thing happens to the nanoparticles, which are so small that they feel entropy's influence more strongly than gravity's. On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: The formation of crystals with the apparent increase in information is a process governed by chemical laws - the polar bonding laws governing the formation of ice crystals. While the crystals appear to have more information, the crystal formation itself is a random application of chemical bonding laws and contains no more information than another crystal formation. To illustrate my point, ask yourself this: Does one crystal, like a snow flake, tell you more information about its process of formation, that you can not get from another snow flake? In the end, the crystals itself are all products randomly created. There is a concept called Specified Complexity wherein one has a mathematical criteria to judge whether one has something that is created by an Intelligence or something that is created by Random chance and physical laws. For example, when you walk down a beach and find scribblings on the beach sand, and it is shaped like an I. You can not immediately say that this scribbling was written by a man. That scribbling has no specified complexity. The information is not complex and specified enough. However, when you see I love Lucy written on the beach sand, you can immediately say that that writting is from an intelligent being. Why? because the complexity is huge, the chance is low and the information of the writting is specified - that is, it contains knowledge from a known source, the human language. Hence, using the criteria of specified complexity, one can say that I love Lucy is specified complex while the letter I while it contains information, is complex but not specified complex. Specified Complexity is a property that allows us to judge whether something has its origins from an intelligence or something from random processes. Whenever we see something like DNA that contains both information and is specified complex and its random formation impossible, we can conclude is was designed by an Intelligence. But once again, I am
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
In the context of intelligent design, the interesting question from an ethical standpoint is as follows: If God's plan of creation is embodied in human DNA, is it a sin for man to modify it in order to correct flaws in it or to improve the human species as a general principle? Is creation of a new type of human or another species a violation of God's plan? If humans are genetically modified to breath the Martian atmosphere and to endure the low gravity conditions, are they conceived in sin. Craig Venter creates synthetic life form http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form Has Craig Venter sinned against the plan of God? Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University, said: Venter is creaking open the most profound door in humanity's history, potentially peeking into its destiny. He is not merely copying life artificially ... or modifying it radically by genetic engineering. He is going towards the role of a god: creating artificial life that could never have existed naturally. This is a defining moment in the history of biology and biotechnology, Mark Bedau, a philosopher at Reed College in Portland, Oregon, told Science. If someone creates a man from scratch, does that created man have a soul? On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Cool!!! Won't be long now until we get a complete catalog of each and every DNA sequence of each and every living plant and animal. When we have this, it would probably is a new dawn in the study of species. No longer will we be dependent on classification based on gross physical characteristics. This new Genetic definition of a species will clear up a lot of misunderstandings and I predict will finally discredit this idea of species evolving from another species, ie. Darwinian Evolution. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Saturday, August 04, 2012 8:04 AM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions JoJo wrote: “It won't be long now when we will have the ability to very rapidly and cheaply sequence each and every DNA for all animals and plants.” ** ** Already here… http://www.nanoporetech.com/news/press-releases/view/39 ** ** ** ** image001.png
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much to the confusion of the debate. What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy to defer to them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are talking about the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences. What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery of the field, how is one to distinguish between an awareness of fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and the specific details of those conclusions, on the other? Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position. Eric
Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions
You are not far off in your assessment of my position. I believe the field of evolutionary biology and probably biology itself and all its subfields is rife with lies, converups and deception. That's true for geology, anthropology and almost all life sciences, including medicine. The entire edifice is built on the dubious assumptions of Darwinian Dogma. Geology is also influenced by the wrong ideas. So is cosmology, physics, and chemistry. Science should be about the search for the truth, not deceptive promotion of any specific world view - a Darwinian Evolution world view. There is a prevailing attitude of science today - that of Naturalistic Methodologism. That is, that all explanations must have a naturalistic basis. This leads to many faulty conclusions. To illustrate, when you look at the Grand Canyon, what do you conclude? If you are like the 99% of deluded Americans, you would say that the Grand Canyon was formed due to millions of years of water carving by the Colorado river. You accept this entire nonsense of millions of years old because you presume that scientists do not lie. Yet, another perfectly plausible explanation exist - that of a Biblical world view, that the Grand Canyon was carved by massive movements of water during the great flood of Noah. Both explanations are valid. The observed facts are the same, and yet one explanation is totally rejected out of hand. Why? because it is not a naturalistic explanation, it does not fit Darwinian Dogma. Well, isn't science to be about the search for the truth and the truth is wider than Darwinian dogma. In this sense, Darwinian Evolution is indeed a religion because people adhere to its precepts by faith without question, all afraid to question it because they ran the risk of being excommunicated from the field. My problem is not with science per se. My problem is the amount of BAD science out there that masquerades as the truth. Hopefully, I can at least make someone here at least consider that Darwinian Evolution is not thehard fact-based science that it claims to be. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2012 11:57 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:The Fallacies of Darwinian Evolution - Basic Definitions Le Aug 3, 2012 à 3:35 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Till now, we have defined species based on their gross physical characteristics. We now know that that approach is flawed and contributes much to the confusion of the debate. What you're describing is not much less than the complete overturning of evolutionary biology as a legitimate body of knowledge. In this thread you seem to be saying that evolutionary biologists are confused on the basic points. This is a claim of a different order than that involved in LENR, for example. To support the plausibility of LENR, one need not set aside physics altogether and raise up a parallel edifice. One need only suspect that the scientific method should be better applied to a handful of experiments that have not been approached with a sufficient degree of objectivity. I defer to physicists on almost all topics relating to physics because I have not made the effort to understand the intricacies of what they're saying and feel it beyond my competence to assert a strong opinion in such matters, even if I occasionally have questions here and there. I feel even less in a position to tell physicists that they are confused about the field as a whole. I find myself in a similar situation with regard to evolutionary biology; having a vague sense of the limits of my understanding, I am happy to defer to them on the fundamentals of their area of expertise. Here we are talking about the hard sciences and not literature or the social sciences. What is the basis of your judgment that you have the requisite understanding of evolutionary biology to set aside the main conclusions of the field and call (Darwinian) evolution a kind of religious faith? Do you propose a world in which expert knowledge beyond a handful of fields has no place? Without having obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology and attained recognized mastery of the field, how is one to distinguish between an awareness of fundamental difficulties in the assumptions of the field, on one hand, and one's own lack of knowledge of the experimental basis of its conclusions, and the specific details of those conclusions, on the other? Perhaps I have misunderstood the implications of your position. Eric
