Evolutionary news

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:52 pm

Minimalist wrote:There is the essential difference between Evolution and the Jesus Freaks.
They religiously resist any changes to their "theory."

Digits point exactly, if I may speak for him. Dogmatic mindsets on either side impede progress.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:55 pm

In that post Min you take a theory and compare it against individuals. Plenty of evolutionist have stood in the face of common sense.
You are retired. If your interest extends back far enough you will also have been required to accept that Dinos were cold blooded, lumbering, lizards, and that 'fact' lasted for over 100 years against all the evidence.
Is that not so?

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:56 pm

As I pointed out earlier, all sorts of nonsense gets written, so the written word cannot be absolute.

start with the bible then
it is the basis for ID and creationism and its provably falsified

Plenty of evolutionist have stood in the face of common sense

plenty of forum posters too
ce la vie
muhahahah

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:01 pm

Marduk, friend. Have you tested what I said about Chimps? The point I was making is that you APPEAR to accept dogma whilst I question it.
The idea of lumbering brainless Dinos lasted for years because no one would question it. Surely questioning is to everybody's advantage?
Now tell me why genetic changes should take place at regular intervals? It seems unlikely to me.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:02 pm

marduk wrote:start with the bible then
it is the basis for ID and creationism and its provably falsified

We haven't concluded that.

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:15 pm

Forum Monk wrote:
marduk wrote:start with the bible then
it is the basis for ID and creationism and its provably falsified
We haven't concluded that.

Let's take it as a given.

..969...

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:20 pm

My argument is not with Darwinism as such, but with with the blind following of dogma, whether by Arch or Marduk or anybody else.
May I make this simple observation. If Darwin had followed the dogma of his day we would not be having this discussion!

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:20 pm

Now tell me why genetic changes should take place at regular intervals? It seems unlikely to me.

tell you
is there any point Roy
so far you havent listened to a word I've said
if you had you'd know by now that genetic changes do not take place at regular intervals
youd also know that Darwins theories were incomplete for a lack of data
and that the theory of evolution has been proven
but you carry on and keep coming with the misconceptions
theyre hugely entertaining to those who know better
and I'd imagine to those who don't

We haven't concluded that.

you haven't concluded that is what you mean
that is because you are unfamiliar with modern evolutionary theory and so would rather believe a book written 2500 years ago is more accurate
can't you see how ridiculous that whole idea is
I had a go at min last week for introducing something that someone said in 1947 as evidence
look at what youre doing
this is the 21st century and you apparently are still living in judea ad33
about tea time

Manystones · Post by **Manystones** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:23 pm

Release Rodger

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:23 pm

Digit wrote:In that post Min you take a theory and compare it against individuals. Plenty of evolutionist have stood in the face of common sense.
You are retired. If your interest extends back far enough you will also have been required to accept that Dinos were cold blooded, lumbering, lizards, and that 'fact' lasted for over 100 years against all the evidence.
Is that not so?

I'm not so sure I agree with your premise, Digit. Early paleontologists made assumptions about reptiles based what they observed about reptiles living at the time.

As the evidence to the contrary has accumulated the outlook has changed. That is science at work and believe me I have railed plenty against scientists who refuse to consider evidence which calls their cherished theories into question. I call them "The Club" to the infinite annoyance of some ( but of course, I don't care ).

Religion, however, when employed by fundamentalists is not afforded the right to change on the basis of new information. It is the quintessential Club.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:28 pm

I have listened Marduk and I have heard it said that mutations occur with 'clockwork' regularity. If this is not so how do you use the changes to calculate the separation of man and Chimp. I'm not being difficult I am hoping you have an answer.
Min, I agree that is the way progress is made, but you can't deny that the reason they were classed as lizards was on the 'evidence' of one Iguandon tooth and that teaching last over 100 yrs, is that not so?
Evidense to the contrary would not have been needed if they hadn't been so certain that similar teeth meant anything more than similar diet. Agreed?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:34 pm

marduk wrote:you haven't concluded that is what you mean

true

that is because you are unfamiliar with modern evolutionary theory

true

and so would rather believe a book written 2500 years ago is more accurate

I never said that.

can't you see how ridiculous that whole idea is

first statement - I haven't concluded that

I had a go at min last week for introducing something that someone said in 1947 as evidence
look at what youre doing
this is the 21st century and you apparently are still living in judea ad33
about tea time

no I am in the same century - trust me.
Are you discrediting the Bible or the first few books?

Post by **Minimalist** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:29 pm

Absolutely, Digit.

But science is allowed to change. Religion is not.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:02 pm

But science is allowed to change. Religion is not.

I think we all know though that religion has changed
every new edition of the bible pretends that its the same yet has removed the by then out of date errors
like pretending that the original version didn't say that the israelites built Heliopolis (which was On) when they later found out it was predynastic and that claim mysteriously disappeared

difference is that science makes progress and admits it and encourages you to be sceptical
and religion pretends that its always been the same and then claims that you're going to hell if you don't believe it

I have heard it said that mutations occur with 'clockwork' regularity

once again you are relying on heresay evidence
which is why you got it wrong
got a credible link that says otherwise I'd love to see it
but I think youre oversimplifying it quite a lot
as there are many changes that can affect genetic make up
and you don't even know what they are
so the fact that you misheard something on uktv probably doesnt make you an expert
yet you're demanding answers to something that isn't true
heres your answer
learn about genetic mutation first
and then if you don't understand it
then ask a relevant question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
btw if you do a search on the page using the find function which is in the edit button top left you'll see that the words "regular" and "regularity" aren't even present anywhere on the page

Charlie Hatchett · Post by **Charlie Hatchett** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:14 pm

What's crazy about the whole genetic thing, though, is, according to molecular information theory, upward evolution is impossible. Only downward evolution...at least according to current theory:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/infor ... ainty.html