Originally posted by robbie carrobieyour point is that of course if its taught at university it must be true?
Oh yes the hallowed cathedrals of Atheism, the universities! Protectorates of all true knowledge and wisdom! your point is that of course if its taught at university it must be true? hardly the case is it. Shall we sight instances where persons who have been taught at university have declared profoundly erroneous statements even within the fields of ...[text shortened]... in another fruitless debate about it. Ask Vishy hes up for it, i want to discuss spirituality.
Nope, your reading too much between the lines. If it is all nonsense as you believe what is taught in evolutionary biology and genetics classes? What do they do all day?
I asked this question whilst your were on your self imposed 'vacation', no one answered?
Originally posted by Proper Knobwhether it happens at university or elsewhere is neither here not there, the tenets remain the same regardless of where its taught.
[b]your point is that of course if its taught at university it must be true?
Nope, your reading too much between the lines. If it is all nonsense as you believe what is taught in evolutionary biology and genetics classes? What do they do all day?
I asked this question whilst your were on your self imposed 'vacation', no one answered?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobie“...The fossil record does not support a gradual transition from one species to another, ...”
if you think for one moment that i am going to get involved in another fruitless argument pointing out the deficiencies of the evolutionary hypothesis, then my dear Mr Hamilton, think again, believe what you want. While far from being an expert I have read enough to know the difference between science and postulation, truth and dogma! The fossil rec ...[text shortened]... ng the same old ground. I am sorry these are also facts. You are correct, it will do no good! 🙂
...which is why the theory was modified to take into account the evidence that clearly shows that evolution occurs in rapid bursts and not gradually -that is just how science works. Haven't you heard of “punctuated evolution”?
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/courses/v1001/gradpunct.html
-and this is complemented by the important concept of punctuated equilibrium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
“...mutations in almost every instance produce inferior characteristics ...”
“most” is the operative word here: do you deny that some mutations can be advantageous to the life that has it? There are plenty of examples; the gene for DDT resistance in mosquitoes and genes for antibiotic resistance in bacteria being just a few; do you deny the existence of these examples?
“....and DNA is designed to not only stabilise but rectify aberrations ...”
actually, it is not DNA that is designed to be that way but rather certain DNA-reparing enzymes that repair some types of mutations. What about the mutations those enzymes fail to repair?
“...and its not only highly illogical, but improbable that life originated from mindless matter,...”
What do you mean by “illogical” in this context? And when you say “ improbable” I am guessing here you are just making the same old flawed assumption that the first life must have had the same molecular complexity of living cells that exist today; what is the bases of such an assumption?
“... and the so called missing links are just that, missing! ….”
Because evolution is punctuated, we know that finding a transitional state fossil is like finding a needle in a haystack; that does not mean the needle is not there, it just means it would be unlikely that we would spot one.
But there are various representatives of missing links that live today. For example; the Lungfish that shows a plausible transition state between fish and amphibians.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHaven't you heard of “punctuated evolution”?
“...The fossil record does not support a gradual transition from one species to another, ...”
...which is why the theory was modified to take into account the evidence that clearly shows that evolution occurs in rapid bursts and not gradually -that is just how science works. Haven't you heard of “punctuated evolution”?
http://www.ldeo.columbi ...[text shortened]... For example; the Lungfish that shows a plausible transition state between fish and amphibians.
yes a modification to make the evidence fit the theory, you may wish to tell me something i don't already know.
I deny nothing, there is no evidence that mutations actually produce new species as the countless experiments with Drosophila melanogaster illustrate
Encyclopedia Americana acknowledge: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”
even when mutations do occur at a molecular they are simply modifications which result in a variation of the trait, as i mentioned DNA (enzymes as you correctly state) is specifically designed to inhibit modification and even to rectify it, didn't you now that?
actually, it is not DNA that is designed to be that way but rather certain DNA-repairing enzymes,
yawn will you tell me something i don't already know???
the basis is neither flawed nor illogical, nor an assumption, its a simple mathematical probability based on getting 22 amino acids out a known hundred or so in the correct sequence and of the correct type.
Now Mr Hamilton, will you tell me what it is about, i do not wish to discuss evolution that you fail to understand? Is it an ambiguous statement? crouched in obscure terms? If you wish to discuss the evolutionary hypothesis, there is a forum for that, it is termed science, this is the spirituality forum where guess what, we discuss things of a spiritual nature, i would ask that you kindly do so.
3 edits
Originally posted by John W BoothLol, actually Mr. Booth i felt a deep sense of remorse, you see, i really did think that your original post was a parody and thus i responded in kind, it set the tone for a 'royal rumble', which to be honest i did not really enjoy. Also in other threads you had taunted me which was unwarranted cause i really do like watching 'little house on the prairie', and it was not a slinking away because i got roasted like you tried to assert! Hopefully we're cool and i have not created another mortal enemy, but hey, the more the merrier. Making reference to experiences in concentration camps which illustrate the effect of a religious disposition is not playing the Nazi card, no regrets! 🙂
I think your Nazi Card smackdown took that particular biscuit on this thread, dude.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe're cool, dude. The net is infested with people who play the Nazi Card on page ONE of message board threads. You waited till page two. Your not so bad.
Hopefully we're cool and i have not created another mortal enemy, but hey, the more the merrier. Making reference to experiences in concentration camps which illustrate the effect of a religious disposition is not playing the Nazi card, no regrets!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt was playing the Nazi Card, dude. I said that I do not speculate about the afterlife. And so you said there is no need for speculation about life after death, that the matter is quite clear, and that it was settled by what was going on in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses as they were murdered by the Nazis and that I am therefore a "tosser" because I don't understand the suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust. THAT is text book internet Nazi Card play.
Making reference to experiences in concentration camps which illustrate the effect of a religious disposition is not playing the Nazi card, no regrets!
Originally posted by John W BoothAre we not allowed to draw on real life experiences to illustrate our point? What if i use an experience from the Russian Gulags? Is that playing the Russian Gulag card? what if i use your own country, America to point out a particular facet of an experience which highlights a religious principle? is that playing the bad American experience card? where are you willing to stop? playing the so called Nazi card is done for political leverage, not to illustrate fortitude in the face of adversity. Your use of the term here is unwarranted and inaccurate.
We're cool, dude. The net is infested with people who play the Nazi Card on page ONE of message board threads. You waited till page two. Your not so bad.
2 edits
Originally posted by John W Boothno its has nothing to do with you understanding suffering, it was simply to illustrate dignity in the face of adversity because of adherence to a religious principle, that is not playing the so called Nazi card. The fact that it happened in concentration camps is irrelevant. Indeed, what did you think i had hoped to gain by mentioning it i have really no idea.
It was playing the Nazi Card, dude. I said that I do not speculate about the afterlife. And so you said there is no need for speculation about life after death, that the matter is quite clear, and that it was settled by what was going on in the minds of Jehovah's Witnesses as they were murdered by the Nazis and that I am therefore a "tosser" because I d stand the suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust. THAT is text book internet Nazi Card play.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie'Dignity in the face of adversity because of adherence to a religious principle' does not illustrate that there is life after death and calling me a tosser and suggesting that I don't understand the horror of Nazi crimes because I don't agree with you hasn't worked. Now your trying to distance yourself from your own scummy message board brinkmanship.
no its has nothing to do with you understanding suffering, it was simply to illustrate dignity in the face of adversity because of adherence to a religious principle, that is not playing the so called Nazi card. Indeed, what did you think i had hoped to gain by mentioning it i have really no idea.