PDA

View Full Version : A 35,000-year-old flute refutes the idea of historic evolution!



Dr.Trax
08-05-2009, 09:26 PM
:sl:


A 35,000-YEAR-OLD FLUTE REFUTES THE IDEA OF HISTORIC EVOLUTION




A 35,000-year-old flute unearthed during the course of excavations in Germany shows, like other flutes discovered to date, that people in very ancient times possessed a highly developed artistic culture.

The flute, made from griffon vulture bone, was unearthed in 12 fragments from the Hohle Fels cave in southern Germany by archeologist Nicholas Conard. Since the 5-hole whistle is enormously fragile, Conard had an identical copy made from a similar piece of bone in order to test the instrument’s functionality. He was able to play the American national anthem, the Star Spangled Banner, on the flute, using the seven-note scale that represents the foundation of Western music.
Archeologists also discovered six statuettes made from mammoth tusk in the same cave. Wil Roebroeks, an archeologist from the University of Leiden in Holland, states that there was a highly advanced culture in Europe 35,000 years ago and that people then had a very similar lifestyle to people today. Roebroeks says that these flutes were made and played by modern human beings. April Nowell from the University of Victoria in Canada has stated that these finds reveal the existence of a highly advanced and stable technical knowledge and tradition.

These archeological finds once again refute the Darwinist claim that human beings share a common ancestor with apes. Darwinists maintain that the ape-like entities that supposedly lived tens of thousands of years ago, grunting to one another and living an animal lifestyle, came to live in groups and thus developed intelligent and social behavior. But these supposed primitive entities are not the only beings to live in social groups. Gorillas, chimpanzees, monkeys and many other animal species live in groups. But none of these have developed the same intelligent and social behavior as human beings. None has made a 7-note flute, manufactured statuettes or, in short, exhibited any such intelligence and ability. Because intelligent and conscious behavior is unique to human beings. These objects dating back to tens of thousands of years, the remains of which have come down to us today, were produced by human beings possessed of intelligence and consciousness, the ability to calculate, plan and manufacture, and a soul given them by Allah.

You are listening to the sound of a reconstruction of a 35,000-year-old flute made from vulture wing bone. (You can switch the sound off by clicking on the sound icon at the top of the page)


The figure of a human being playing a flute in the 7,000-year-old drawing shows that the people of the time possessed a culture and a knowledge of music, and therefore, that they were mentally developed and cultured.

Painting beside, which is also 7,000 years old, shows a man playing a musical instrument. The recent photograph above shows a member of the Dzu, a native community in Botswana, playing a similar instrument. The fact is, a musical instrument similar to that used 7,000 years ago is still in use today! This is another striking example that demolishes Darwinist claims. Civilization does not always advance, as Darwinists maintain; sometimes it may remain the same for thousands of years. While this man keeps playing a venerable instrument that has existed for the past 7,000 years, on the other side of the world, digital symphonies are being composed using the most advanced computer technology. And both cultures co-exist at the same
time.



:wa:
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Science101
08-05-2009, 11:30 PM
Hi Dr. Trax!

I had a feeling you would still be a big Harun fan! Link to the above was easy to find:

http://us2.harunyahya.com/Detail/T/E...oductId/15069/

I hope you have been seeing how the most recent scientific evidence is making it difficult (in case of humans) to define what a "common ancestor" is. There was not "slow change". Scientific evidence now indicates the giant human chromosome suddenly appeared in the population then full human man and woman were born. That would make our common ancestor Adam and Eve, or their parents but they could not have the 48 chromosome "ape" genome type either and I think could play the flute but kids might have been better at it than their parents who were maybe busy enough making sure their needs were met to have time to practice.

I often say (and might have previously in the forum) that in these things the truth ends up in the middle. The answer is what neither side expected but religion is not hurt by it. And in this case there would have likely been a small number of fully human like them born to other families which solves a big problem explaining how children had children. Also, part of being human requires cellular development then growing up with someone there to teach what is required for them to later on their own make wise decisions. Giving them a preprogrammed brain not tempted by the fruit tree would work fine and they would not get kicked out of paradise but we must have a "free will" type of mind or not be human. We must be taught over time. And humans make mistakes but without that we would be like a simple robot-mind, not a human.

Most recent evidence has the clay still in the story too. Only difference is the clay was prior to their birth for the origin of cells to develop into humans.
Reply

Charzhino
08-06-2009, 07:36 PM
Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.
Reply

Science101
08-07-2009, 06:34 AM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.
I don't need to "disprove evolution" the only thing I need to do is prove false the conclusions that have no scientific merit at all in the scientific arena.

I just checked scientific literature to see how the human speciation debate in regards to Neanderthal is doing. There is still discussion on classification as a "subspecies" but that does not make them a non-human. Evidence now suggests that the two populations hybridized and are now in the gene pool of the "modern human" Homo Sapiens. If by rare chance it is found that they had the 48 chromosome genome then the hybridization theories would be in trouble because of the reproduction problems which would make it unlikely they could produce offspring together. But that would not change a single thing in regards to the theory I represent that already has all the solid evidence it needs without speciation details that paleontology and anthropology are filling in.

Since your side of the argument claims "they where not human" and this is a very basic science question a simple dictionary definition of what a "human" is should do here:

Http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Human

homo: any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae characterized by superior intelligence, articulate speech, and erect carriage
If you want more evidence then this detailed science paper from the most respected Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences will explain the human chromosomal speciation event:

From References: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full
The scientific evidence is very much in our favor. Where you dispute my conclusions you will need to provide equally reliable scientific evidence to the contrary, but from what I know there is none.

The question of what makes us human is now open to all humans to help answer including Dr. Trax and others regardless of their religious way of defining these things. With you being a human too your opinion on the evidence that I presented is likewise valuable, but you will first have to study the paper above and/or the theory of ID blog section on speciation because most of what you were taught or told about human speciation no longer has merit anywhere in the scientific arena.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Dr.Trax
08-07-2009, 09:12 AM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Weak attempt to disprove evolution. Neanderthal's lived about 30,000 year ago, and they had ''advanced'' techniques, such as music, burial of dead, art whilst performing care for their handicapped family. However, mitochondrial DNA from Neaderthals have proven that they where not human, that their genetic differences where far too varied than homo sapien sapien.
Weak attempt to prove evolution!
Humans lived about 1.5 million years ago!

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...w-imagina.html

And for the Neandertals it is all SciFi-made up!

Peace.
Reply

Charzhino
08-07-2009, 01:13 PM
Originally Posted by Science101
Since your side of the argument claims "they where not human" and this is a very basic science question a simple dictionary definition of what a "human" is should do here
It is highly probable that they where not modern human. Recent sequencing of mitochondrial DNA of Neanderthal's allowed thefollowing graph of differences to be constructed.



This is a extract from the paper.

By contrast, the Neandertal genome had an average of 27 +/- 2.2 differences from modern humans (3.375 times the average difference between modern humans). The smallest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 22, and the largest difference between any human and the Neandertal was 36. These differences put the Neandertal genome well outside the limits of modern humans. Another interesting result is that the mtDNA sequence seemed equally distant from all modern groups of humans. In particular, it did not seem to be more closely related to Europeans, something that might have been expected if, as some scientists think, Neandertals were at least partly ancestral to them
Reply

Charzhino
08-07-2009, 01:18 PM
Furtur sequencing of a complete mtDNA of a Neanderthals gave this graph.



The conclusion arrived from this is:

Analysis of the assembled sequence unequivocally establishes that the Neandertal mtDNA falls outside the variation of extant human mtDNAs, and allows an estimate of the divergence date between the two mtDNA lineages of 660,000 ± 140,000 years
Reply

Charzhino
08-07-2009, 01:21 PM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Forgot to mention the key:
Green - Human/human comparison
Red - Human/Ne'thal comparison
Blue - Human/Chimp comparison

Green R., Malaspinas A-S, Krause J., Briggs A., et al. (2008) A Complete Neandertal Mitochondrial Genome Sequence Determined by High-Throughput Sequencing. Cell, 134:416-426
Reply

Science101
08-07-2009, 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
It is highly probable that they where not modern human.
Yes, I have to agree with that. A "modern human" lives in "modern time" while our more distant ancestors are "human" but lived in "ancient time" then before that in recent "prehistoric time".

That was an easy one to reconcile!
Reply

markislam
08-13-2009, 04:44 PM
i personally dont believe in evolution
Reply

Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн
08-13-2009, 06:51 PM
It's called the theory of evolution, not the fact of evolution :hmm:
Reply

Azy
08-13-2009, 09:42 PM
Unfortunately the word 'theory' doesn't mean what you appear to think it does. This topic was done to death the first time this news was posted, and there's absolutely nothing in it that has any bearing on evolution at all, never mind a refutation.
Reply

جوري
08-13-2009, 09:46 PM
You can't apply the principles of macro evolution to micro evolution and vice versa ..
if you don't have something demonstrable that can stand on its own merits, then this exercise is futile.. it doesn't matter how authoritatively sounding your convictions!


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-14-2009, 05:21 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You can't apply the principles of macro evolution to micro evolution and vice versa
The distinction between the two is superficial.
Reply

جوري
08-14-2009, 06:10 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
The distinction between the two is superficial.
if you have done some very basic molecular biology and genetics, you'd know that your testament is erroneous at best!

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-14-2009, 07:21 PM
For the benefit of all why don't you just dazzle us with an explanation? :)
Reply

جوري
08-14-2009, 07:40 PM
use the search feature third from your anatomical right, I have discussed it in quite the details, & so did br. Steve et. al.
High fidelity should be exercised one pedant at a time for accuracy! ...

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-14-2009, 09:37 PM
I was more hoping for a discussion between us since you brought it up and I want to know why it is that you think micro and macro are exclusive (though it's clear why you would want to). Dredging up a 3 year old thread with all the usual apologetics and harun yahya claptrap isn't really what I was aiming for with my post.

That is unless you think there's a particularly enlightening (and preferably noise free) thread including your own views which you wouldn't mind being quizzed on. If so, could you do me the favour of pointing it out since there're a lot of threads pertaining to evolution.
Reply

جوري
08-14-2009, 10:17 PM
I don't believe I have ever used Hrun yahaya on any of my threads or debates..
Regardless of the cloud of miasma your apologists like to create around him, he defends his reasons in the same superficial style that evolutionists use .. it doesn't begin to scratch the surface of molecular biology or genetics..

if you want for starters you may read this, which I have in fact used before in my debates:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

that is how detailed you've to get in order for me to view something through one lens or another.. evolution has no bearing on whether or not God exists.. many people believe that it is God's way and plan for the world..
I have problems with the scientific aspects of it.. there is no good reason for me to substitute one belief system for another.. since we are not talking mere adaptation by known principles rather actual speciation.. It is actually very big, and at the rate that it happened for all these billions of species, there is no point for humans to be in the shape they are in for the last one thousand years.

if you don't like the noise, then take yourself out of a debate, last I left it, it takes two hands to clap no?


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-15-2009, 09:42 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
that is how detailed you've to get in order for me to view something through one lens or another
I suppose I'm obliged to ask what the good is in all that detail when it provides no useful information. I'd take relevancy and accuracy any day, detailed or not.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
.. evolution has no bearing on whether or not God exists..
Quite, but it starts limiting his traditional jurisdiction which some people find distasteful and are consequently unreceptive in the same way as those who just seemed to prefer the Earth being flat.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I have problems with the scientific aspects of it.. there is no good reason for me to substitute one belief system for another.. since we are not talking mere adaptation by known principles rather actual speciation..
Earlier I stumbled across a 'revisiting' of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species and I found a line which summed it up nicely for me.

"After all, species differences are simply the final disposition of the standing genetic variation within species, so it is the nature of that standing variation and of the forces modulating it that is the real stuff of evolutionary
genetics. All else is just developmental and molecular biology."
Reply

جوري
08-15-2009, 10:07 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I suppose I'm obliged to ask what the good is in all that detail when it provides no useful information. I'd take relevancy and accuracy any day, detailed or not.
You are under no obligation to do anything, least of which as far as I am concerned. As for what good is the detail ''inquiring minds want to know'' that is the point of converting fiction to science!


Quite, but it starts limiting his traditional jurisdiction which some people find distasteful and are consequently unreceptive in the same way as those who just seemed to prefer the Earth being flat.Earlier I stumbled across a 'revisiting' of Dobzhansky's Genetics and the Origin of Species and I found a line which summed it up nicely for me.
I find no relations between a molecular biologist going over the details of cell assembly by scientific means and folks believing the earth was flat.. you want to loan what you write some credence, I'll let go of the platitudes...
"After all, species differences are simply the final disposition of the standing genetic variation within species, so it is the nature of that standing variation and of the forces modulating it that is the real stuff of evolutionary
genetics. All else is just developmental and molecular biology."
indeed, and that is precisely why we share 50% of our genes with bananas.. I'll wait a few thousand years for bananas to evolve the other 50% to fully human before I retract the error of my ways

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT.../question/919/


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-15-2009, 11:10 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You are under no obligation to do anything, least of which as far as I am concerned. As for what good is the detail ''inquiring minds want to know'' that is the point of converting fiction to science!
My question was not about detail in general, rather the detail in the linked document versus it's relevance.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I find no relations between a molecular biologist going over the details of cell assembly by scientific means and folks believing the earth was flat..
Evolution is so well supported you might as well believe the Earth is flat. Why Mullan takes time out from astronomy to write such long winded articles arguing the probabilistic unlikeliness of an event no one even suggested might have happened is beyond me unless it's sole purpose is as a straw man. You inserting it into this thread puzzles me even more.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
indeed, and that is precisely why we share 50% of our genes with bananas.. I'll wait a few thousand years for bananas to evolve the other 50% to fully human before I retract the error of my ways
That's the strangest thing I've heard anyone say about this topic, and I certainly didn't expect something so willfully idiotic from someone so intelligent and educated.

Do we share 50% of our genes with bananas because we evolved from bananas? Since I share a good portion of my genes with practically every living thing on the planet does that mean I evolved from everything?

Or perhaps the alternative seems a bit more likely, that we all have genes in common because we share the same heritage.
Reply

جوري
08-15-2009, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
My question was not about detail in general, rather the detail in the linked document versus it's relevance.
without details, there is no evidence or room for discussion.. I don't see how there can be anything to talk about.. opinion are of little interest to me personally!

Evolution is so well supported you might as well believe the Earth is flat.
Now that you have put it that way, I am really going to dump all I know of science and join your band wagon!

Why Mullan takes time out from astronomy to write such long winded articles arguing the probabilistic unlikeliness of an event no one even suggested might have happened is beyond me unless it's sole purpose is as a straw man.
You can't really argue against contents of an article that you haven't read or properly refuted.. what do we call that? I think the term is spamming!

You inserting it into this thread puzzles me even more.
was it as puzzling as your mention of Harun Yahaya on a thread about prehistoric flutes or are you exempt from common sense?

That's the strangest thing I've heard anyone say about this topic, and I certainly didn't expect something so willfully idiotic from someone so intelligent and educated.
Perhaps you need two more doses of engineered gray matter to appreciate its genius!
Do we share 50% of our genes with bananas because we evolved from bananas? Since I share a good portion of my genes with practically every living thing on the planet does that mean I evolved from everything?
For me personally, these are the building blocks of our universe.. I don't see bananas into humans anymore than I see apes or single celled organisms for that matter... that should have been the obvious ratiocination of said exercise!

Or perhaps the alternative seems a bit more likely, that we all have genes in common because we share the same heritage.
Perhaps made by the same creator who used the same building blocks..
Evolution even if it were the answer, leaves many unanswered Q's


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-16-2009, 12:17 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You can't really argue against contents of an article that you haven't read or properly refuted..
I read that article a long time ago and it doesn't need refuting. Whether it is 100% accurate or complete rubbish doesn't matter because the probability of randomly assembling a cell is of no use to anyone, certainly not us in the course of this thread.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
For me personally
I think this is the problem. We're not discussing what you think is important or might have happened or is plausible, rather what can be seen to be true.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Evolution even if it were the answer, leaves many unanswered Q's
Isn't that why you engage in science, to ask questions and attempt to find answers instead of making up your own?

I don't understand why you might consider it a problem as we could say the same thing about the Quran. So long as there are minds there will be questions.
Reply

جوري
08-16-2009, 12:59 AM
Originally Posted by Azy
I read that article a long time ago and it doesn't need refuting. Whether it is 100% accurate or complete rubbish doesn't matter because the probability of randomly assembling a cell is of no use to anyone, certainly not us in the course of this thread.
you didn't read the article, if you had, you'd have seen alot of relevance.
Or perhaps it is just that you don't like things that argue against your beliefs, which is understandable!


I think this is the problem. We're not discussing what you think is important or might have happened or is plausible, rather what can be seen to be true.Isn't that why you engage in science, to ask questions and attempt to find answers instead of making up your own?
Again, I am at a loss, you write nonsense that has no intelligible meaning whatsoever least of which to the topic. If you know what happened, rather than what I think happened, then why not let us examine it, better yet, head down to Stockholm and collect your Nobel for that intermediate that has allegedly left science and religion at odds.

I don't understand why you might consider it a problem as we could say the same thing about the Quran. So long as there are minds there will be questions.
I don't consider it a problem at all, I consider it a substitution.. you don't like a set of beliefs, so you substitute it for another set of beliefs and irked at best if someone probes for deeper answers rather than take it at face value...

let me put all topics aside whether of flutes or evolution and ask you this..

what is your hope of this exercise?
Do you think, by subversive thinking and an attempt to discredit the author (rather than content of the article with like science) or subject us to yet another ad populum argument that you'll gain a position of advantage? or by appealing to my intellect or even vanity if I am to let go of the brain all together? You haven't so far written anything of substance it almost infuriates me to waste time on a thread that I could be using toward any number of less inane tasks.

Evolution is all about a series of probable events across a protracted period of time through set means known to science as DNA breaks, jumping genes, mutations, chromosomal alterations etc. as favorable conditions in our planet to foster the whole affair.. If you know of some other means and have some hard data then bring it.. we wouldn't be having a discussion back if there were complete demonstrable evidence.. you could potentially put the whole argument to rest, rather than misapply science and feel persecuted by a throng of faithful idiots.


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-16-2009, 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
let me put all topics aside whether of flutes or evolution and ask you this..

what is your hope of this exercise?
Let's not put these topics aside since the point of this 'exercise' was a simple question I alluded to at the beginning... In your eyes what is the significant difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

If the article you posted is relevant I don't see why, you could at least offer some explanation for it's inclusion rather than simply posting it and saying "Ha, refute that!"
Reply

جوري
08-16-2009, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Let's not put these topics aside since the point of this 'exercise' was a simple question I alluded to at the beginning... In your eyes what is the significant difference between microevolution and macroevolution?

If the article you posted is relevant I don't see why, you could at least offer some explanation for it's inclusion rather than simply posting it and saying "Ha, refute that!"
Again, I have explained and repeatedly.. your short term memory has got to be better than that of a gold fish especially with the visual aid of the search feature-- in fact the last paragraph of my last post is the very abridged summed up version of that..
if you know the means of adaptation as listed above (look up their subcategories) either on the forum here or google, then use them to give us speciation.. what you use to adapt makes you adapt, not switch species-- but again, if you know otherwise, I'd be really glad to hear it right after you head down to Stockholm to pick up your Nobel ...
you want to be an evolutionist, because it is soooooo proven and everyone believes it especially the 'scientition', then be an evolutionist, no one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to think without a label hanging over you like a badge of shame to classify you in one group or another!

I'll ask you at this point to pls stop wasting my time..

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-16-2009, 06:08 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
if you know otherwise, I'd be really glad to hear it right after you head down to Stockholm to pick up your Nobel
I don't see as there's much point, I won't be getting an award for something that's already been proved many times over.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
what you use to adapt makes you adapt, not switch species
Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution. - Niles Eldredge

That's exactly what causes speciation, when the genetic variation within a population is amplified (perhaps by geographical isolation and adaptation to the new habitat) and a group becomes genetically isolated.


I know that this can't be beyond you and that you must be aware of all the work that has gone on in this field so I have a feeling you would prefer to be a happy muslim than an honest biologist. I won't bother bringing it up in future.
Reply

جوري
08-16-2009, 06:28 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I don't see as there's much point, I won't be getting an award for something that's already been proved many times over.
whatever you say..

Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution. - Niles Eldredge
aha..
That's exactly what causes speciation, when the genetic variation within a population is amplified (perhaps by geographical isolation and adaptation to the new habitat) and a group becomes genetically isolated.
indeed.. I guess that is why every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease...I am at a loss on why genetic and molecular bio books have been holding out on us.. I am telling you, it is time you headed to Stockholm, for by God that you've got it...

I know that this can't be beyond you and that you must be aware of all the work that has gone on in this field so I have a feeling you would prefer to be a happy muslim than an honest biologist. I won't bother bringing it up in future.
you are so right, that is exactly it.. have you gratified your expectations now that you have appealed to every fallacy that you could muster? :p


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-17-2009, 01:09 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I guess that is why every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease...
Mmm,
you,
might,
have,
missed,
some.

I suppose adult lactose tolerance, melanin levels, drug/pesticide resistance etc. don't count either.

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I am at a loss on why genetic and molecular bio books have been holding out on us
"Furthermore, occasional mutations may turn out to be beneficial to the survival and reproduction of the organism. The accumulation of such beneficial mutations allows the organism to evolve in response to changing environmental conditions."
Clark, David P., 2005. Molecular Biology. Academic Press. p. 334
"Conversely, the rare mutations that confer a major reproductive advantage on individuals who inherit them can spread rapidly in the population."
Alberts, Bruce., 2007. Molecular Biology of the Cell. Garland Science. p. 258
"Very rarely, a new mutation confers a selective advantage and increases the fitness of its carrier. Such a mutation will be subjected to positive (or advantageous) selection, which would be expected to foster its spread through a population"
Strachan, T. & Read, Andrew P., 2003. Human Molecular Genetics 3. Garland Science. p. 319
"Mutation is the motor of evolution. In prokaryotes short doubling times and large populations allow mutations which confer a survival advantage (in response to changes in the environment) to quickly become established."
Strachan, T. & Read, Andrew P., 2003. Human Molecular Genetics 3. Garland Science. p. 354
"In short, the distinction between the genetics of 'species differences' and 'speciation' is a rather subtle one. If one considers mainly allopatric speciation, the difference is more in scale than in kind."
Howard, Daniel J. & Berlocher, Stewart H., 1998. Endless Forms: Species and Speciation. Oxford University Press US. p. 340
Reply

جوري
08-17-2009, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
I am not here to name every enzyme, or mutation, as I can guarantee listing some that will have you in your encyclopaedia for hours it won't change the outcome one bit.. also I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition... the problem is that you still can't synthesize what you are implying here to make sense to topic or have any relations to speciation.. all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am persoanlly concerned!

I suppose adult lactose tolerance, melanin levels, drug/pesticide resistance etc. don't count either.
Count for what.. let me throw out some words in the air from which the reader is to decipher what he may, just fun' sake:

N-acetylgalactosamine-6-sulfate sulfatase, beta-glucuronidase, heparan N-sulfatase, alpha-L-iduronidase .. lol..
incidentally, did you know that if 'nature' didn't give you alpha-L-iduronidase , you'd have to pay $300,000 - 400,000 to the one company that had it engineered?
Another concern is ERT's cost, which may exceed $400,000 a year. Although it typically is covered by insurance, out-of-pocket expense can be significant, depending on insurance deductibles.
http://rn.modernmedicine.com/rnweb/C.../detail/527784

have you thought about the zillions of enzymes in your body (that won't have you speciating) rather diseased, or dead in a hurry, that will cost you $400,000.. do you get down and show gratitude that it was giving you for free, that you don't even have a name for had I not listed it here, but take it for granted?.. or do you go about your day inventing ways to be absurd on an Islamic forum, thinking if you throw random terms out there, something is bound to take hold?...


unless you consider this child to be a different specie





Enzymes, proteins, DNA, jumping genes, mutations.. all of them work in a very predictable pattern.. all of them on a shelf housing rare genetic disorders amongst other books in my library.. I guarantee all the folks in there are still human.. if they manage to survive still go on to produce humans!
Let every aberration remind you of what you have.. truly so few are grateful!

want to try again?

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-18-2009, 08:28 AM
The torrent of medical jargon is starting so I guess you don't actually have much more to say.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition...
The list was in response to your statement:
"I guess that is why every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease"

I doubt everyone would agree with your opinion that increased bone strength, creating new enzymes to metabolise additional foodstuffs or a resistance to toxins come under the heading of "disease". That is unless your definition of disease includes everything which is somewhat different to the majority of the population regardless of whether it is beneficial to the subject or not.


You also claim that "genetic and molecular bio books have been holding out on us" regarding beneficial mutations and speciation, but I have found references to these in many books, including the ones quoted on the previous page.
That seems a little strange considering your opinion that neither of these things actually occur, so I can only realistically come to the conclusion that either all those authors are wrong, or you are wrong.
Reply

Charzhino
08-18-2009, 03:39 PM
Gossamer, if you can tell us why ERV's are found in the exact same position in human genomes and chimp genomes, then you will have disproved evolution by common decent.
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
The torrent of medical jargon is starting so I guess you don't actually have much more to say.The list was in response to your statement:
Perhaps that is precisely why you shouldn't be copying articles that you don't understand the importance or meaning of? -- that way you wouldn't complain later about 'medical jargon' that is over your head!
"I guess that is why every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease"
indeed

I doubt everyone would agree with your opinion that increased bone strength, creating new enzymes to metabolise additional foodstuffs or a resistance to toxins come under the heading of "disease". That is unless your definition of disease includes everything which is somewhat different to the majority of the population regardless of whether it is beneficial to the subject or not.
I don't know who 'everyone' is.. throwing 'everyone' in doesn't sweeten the pot or a solid argument make nor does it clarify your position in a demonstrable provable fashion & not a romanticized theoretical one -- increase in bone density isolate to help those with osteoporosis, I fear has no relevance to speciation.. in fact increased bone density in and of itself is a form of disease called osteopetrosis..
here is the first website that came up:
http://www.osteopetrosis.org/

mice that are resistant to warfarin means you'll have to kill them with heparin or maybe Lepirudin to be humane and are a big spender.. it won't turn them into goats though.. muscle changes in all its forms isn't beneficial as the body works in a very fine delicate balance... if they did, then the sufferers wouldn't be visiting doctors, but isolating themselves for metamorphosis. And you sir, again, down to Stockholm to claim your Nobel!
by the way wasn't you I had discussed SCT with before and you ended up with a foot in your mouth when you came to aid your pal?

Originally Posted by Converse02
Whoa, you found TWO case studies in which a person with sickle cell trait happened to have renal papillary necrosis and renal medullary carcinoma.
Geez, I guess those TWO cases are enough to get the whole gene selected out (despite it's benefits against malaria) and disprove evolution!!! Are you for real?
It isn't two cases at all, how many times must I publicly embarrass you, You are hilarious.. here is an article about diseases that can arise in sickle cell trait,
http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/sickle_trait.html

which include Life-threatening complications of exercise, splenic infarction, hematuria, UTI, Polycystic kidney dz. renal medullar ca. pulmonary embolism, proliferative retinopathy etc etc..

Originally Posted by Azy
I don't want to start another argument but it does seem like you're being purposefully evasive because it's clear what his point is.

The first line of the page you posted states :
"Sickle cell trait usually is not regarded as a disease state because it has complications that are either uncommon or mild. Nevertheless, under unusual circumstances serious morbidity or mortality can result".
Indeed, and Malaria is a dz state --schizont infected Rbcs which like afore mentioned causes -- such as hypoxia, acidosis, high altitude etc cause the RBC's to go into a state similar to that of fulminant sickle cell.. i.e disabling the schizonts from surviving.. thus substituting one disease state for another doesn't confer immunity or superior genetics.. else we'd all be lining up at pfizer asking for vectors to transform our normal hemoglobin to the carrier trait in case we desire a leave of absence to the Serengeti!
It is serendipitous that folks already in an ailing state not succumb to a superimposed infection..
why don't you highlight to me how substituting one disease state for another proves evolution?


You also claim that "genetic and molecular bio books have been holding out on us" regarding beneficial mutations and speciation, but I have found references to these in many books, including the ones quoted on the previous page.
Becoming a resistant bacteria is beneficial? having an increased bone density is beneficial? having sct is beneficial, even if I am to accept that 'because everyone else has' what is the relation of adaptation to becoming a different specie? you want to shed some light on that?
That seems a little strange considering your opinion that neither of these things actually occur, so I can only realistically come to the conclusion that either all those authors are wrong, or you are wrong.
Perhaps the problem is that you've no understanding of the science that you are quoting or its relevance to the topic at hand...

all the best
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Gossamer, if you can tell us why ERV's are found in the exact same position in human genomes and chimp genomes, then you will have disproved evolution by common decent.
If you want to tell us why 50% of our genomes are similar to those on bananas then you'll have proved evolution by common fruit..


all the best!
Reply

czgibson
08-18-2009, 05:32 PM
Greetings,

Originally Posted by Gossamer Skye
all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am persoanlly concerned!
It looks to me like you stopped understanding Azy's points quite a while ago, hence the usual flood of medical irrelevance.

Peace
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 05:37 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,



It looks to me like you stopped understanding Azy's points quite a while ago, hence the usual flood of medical irrelevance.

Peace
So long as you understand Azy's points, then that will be all that matters..
concordance between the two of you or 'everyone' else, seems to come up empty as far as the scientific community and me as a person.. none of the articles he has quoted actually have any relevance to Evolution, no matter how hard you both strain and congratulate each other.


all the best
Reply

czgibson
08-18-2009, 05:40 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
So long as you understand Azy's points, then that will be all that matters..
concordance between the two of you or 'everyone' else, seems to come up empty as far as the scientific community and me as a person.. none of the articles he has quoted actually have any relevance to Evolution, no matter how hard you both strain and congratulate each other.


all the best
It's another case of: "whatever you say..."

Peace
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 05:42 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


It's another case of: "whatever you say..."

Peace
It makes me wonder why you bother take up web-space all together? Do you want to grab my attention only to let me know that you are ignoring me? :hmm: if you can't gauge the topic and elucidate your point(s), then it is best you take the position of a spectator?

all the best
Reply

czgibson
08-18-2009, 05:48 PM
Greetings,
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
It makes me wonder why you bother take up web-space all together? Do you want to grab my attention only to let me know that you are ignoring me? :hmm: if you can't gauge the topic and elucidate your point(s), then it is best you take the position of a spectator?

all the best
You invited comments, so that's what I gave.

It's not like it's actually worth discussing anything with you, is it?

Peace
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 05:52 PM
Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


You invited comments, so that's what I gave.

It's not like it's actually worth discussing anything with you, is it?

Peace
I didn't invite comments at all, in fact if you'd followed the 'evolution' of this thread, instead of coming in to loan support to your friend you'd have seen this :

Gossamer:
what is your hope of this exercise?
Do you think, by subversive thinking and an attempt to discredit the author (rather than content of the article with like science) or subject us to yet another ad populum argument that you'll gain a position of advantage? or by appealing to my intellect or even vanity if I am to let go of the brain all together? You haven't so far written anything of substance it almost infuriates me to waste time on a thread that I could be using toward any number of less inane tasks.
You understand English better than anyone I know on this forum.. does that seem like an invite?

Don't get me wrong, I like that you came to support him.. it shows valor..
but it doesn't do anything for me personally.. :smile:

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-18-2009, 08:22 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
in fact increased bone density in and of itself is a form of disease called osteopetrosis..
If you'd read the article you might have noticed it says "There was no radiographic evidence of osteopetrosis, and the shape of the vertebral bodies was normal."
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And even if I am to accept that 'because everyone else has' what is the relation of adaptation to becoming a different specie? you want to shed some light on that?
'"Adaptive speciation' refers to speciation processes in which the splitting is an adaptive response to disruptive selection caused by frequency-dependent biological interactions." Dieckmann, Ulf. 2004. Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press.

I'm sure you know there are other causes of speciation such as geographical isolation, but I suppose that's a different matter which you can deny at your leisure.

'Species' is the singular as well as the plural, specie isn't a word (well not related to this topic anyway).
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 08:45 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
If you'd read the article you might have noticed it says "There was no radiographic evidence of osteopetrosis, and the shape of the vertebral bodies was normal."
we are talking manipulated in vitro biochemical studies, with the conclusion summed up in the abstract:
Conclusions The LRP5V171 mutation causes high bone density, with a thickened mandible and torus palatinus, by impairing the action of a normal antagonist of the Wnt pathway and thus increasing Wnt signaling. These findings demonstrate the role of altered LRP5 function in high bone mass and point to Dkk as a potential target for the prevention or treatment of osteoporosis.
The goal is to manipulate directly to find a curative rx. for osteoporosis. Not only isn't not nature made but lab made, but it is to find if not a full cure, a permanent rx. for osteoporosis as from the above it isn't without its problems for the mandible and torus palatinus. high bone density as occurs in nature is a disease state called osteopetrosis..or are you simply denying that such a condition exists? I don't see the relevance in isolation or to evolution.. do you want to shed some light on that, or perhaps get one of your staunch supporters to make sense of it for you?
'"Adaptive speciation' refers to speciation processes in which the splitting is an adaptive response to disruptive selection caused by frequency-dependent biological interactions." Dieckmann, Ulf. 2004. Adaptive speciation. Cambridge University Press.
That is nice.. I took from that abridged conclusion that speciation occurs due to a number of occurrences within a given time period' that is what 'frequency' in and of itself means, which I believe Dr Mullan dove into fully down to every last detail.. but you didn't think it of much relevance.. are you simply retracting your words now or see relevance only in superficial comments that support your views?

I'm sure you know there are other causes of speciation such as geographical isolation, but I suppose that's a different matter which you can deny at your leisure.
geographical isolation..micropsia, necrobiotic xanthogranuloma, diastrophism, ice cream sundae.. there is no logical or meaningful connection here dear.. throwing words out or articles with no bearing on the subject I fear are not making a strong case for you..

'Species' is the singular as well as the plural, specie isn't a word (well not related to this topic anyway).
by God, you got one thing correct.. cheers..

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-18-2009, 11:22 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I don't see the relevance in isolation
Well since it isn't what those people have it doesn't really matter does it :)
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
which I believe Dr Mullan dove into fully down to every last detail..
I've asked you to elaborate on what relevance you believe the random assembly of a cell has to this discussion, but it seems you're just talking nonsense. Feel free to pull out some gems from this treasure trove of knowledge and set me straight.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
geographical isolation.. there is no logical or meaningful connection here dear..
Sorry my dear, allopatric speciation.

I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?
Reply

جوري
08-18-2009, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Well since it isn't what those people have it doesn't really matter does it :)
ha? should I understand from this, that you have no interest in expounding on your illuminating articles and their relevance to speciation?

I've asked you to elaborate on what relevance you believe the random assembly of a cell has to this discussion, but it seems you're just talking nonsense. Feel free to pull out some gems from this treasure trove of knowledge and set me straight.
I have elaborated on many a great many thread, you always manage to come back from a different hole ignoring all the previous discussions..I have no interest in setting you in any form, why don't you get your wife/girlfriend/significant other to do that for you?
Sorry my dear, allopatric speciation.
Same thing as you have written before .. Allopatry is the occurrence of related organisms in separate geographical areas with no overlap (as per dictionary) the word or the definition is rather missing the details of the phenomenon.. ....
I cannot imagine that a molecular biologist doesn't actually know how speciation works or even that you believe mutations cannot possibly under any circumstances confer any benefit.
Just how does the happy muslim explain away the gradual change in life represented in the fossil record?
Familiarize yourself of the difference between macro and micro-evolution ..
as well of the contents you are reading, (such as with the sickle cell example above) or actually any article you bring me as I notice repeatedly when explained to you in simple words you seem to ignore them and then make a move from another empty angle..
.... fossil records, are records of extinct species like a Quagga or a caspian tiger.. 'related to' doesn't mean descendant of or that it is your great(some large exponent) uncle bob with a really bad hair problem ...
Also even if I were to accept this as the ultimate truth it still doesn't explain the origins of things.. which is actually where Dr. Mullan's paper comes in.. evolution from the proposed mechanisms by same scientests who brought you, your ape grandfather. Whereas you'll have me stop at apes and ask no more questions.. he takes it back to the inception..
It isn't a difficult choice to make, if we are to excercise some logic!



I am still at a loss of your pursuit though, does it matter to you what I know to be factual or theoretical, what I accept as false or true? Any particular reason at all as to why you enjoy consuming my time? Can you not read or reason? Do you need someone to explain the contents to you for free?

all the best
Reply

Charzhino
08-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If you want to tell us why 50% of our genomes are similar to those on bananas then you'll have proved evolution by common fruit..


all the best!
Now, now, you answered my question, with a question!
And your question has nothing to do with my orginal statement about ERV's being in exact poisitions in chimp and human genome.
Reply

جوري
08-19-2009, 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Now, now, you answered my question, with a question!
And your question has nothing to do with my orginal statement about ERV's being in exact poisitions in chimp and human genome.
I love that interjection of rebuke you'd think the following would be ground breaking.. nonetheless, vacuous poorly phrased questions deserve rhetorical replies if at all given how many times I have addressed that exact point. once you work on my query can we address you 'original statement'..
pls don't have at me with more platitudes to save your manhood... we have a maximum allowance of one thicko per thread!


all the best
Reply

Charzhino
08-19-2009, 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I love that interjection of rebuke you'd think the following would be ground breaking.. nonetheless, vacuous poorly phrased questions deserve rhetorical replies if at all given how many times I have addressed that exact point. once you work on my query can we address you 'original statement'..
pls don't have at me with more platitudes to save your manhood... we have a maximum allowance of one thicko per thread!


all the best
Poorley phrased question? Ok let me re-phrase it.
An ERV is a endogenous retrovirus which can ''insert'' itself in an organism genome and remain dormant for the remainder of the organisms life. If this virus is happens to be insert itself into a sperm/egg cell, then the entire following generation of offspring will contain this retrovirus in their genome. Now, scientists have discovered that not only one ERV exists in the exact same location in a human genome and a chimp genome, but several do.
This leads to the conlclusion that chimps and humans had a common ancestor which had this ERV inserted into it's genome, resulting in all offspring to contain the retrovirus.
How can this be explained without evolution by common descent?
Reply

جوري
08-19-2009, 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
Poorley phrased question? Ok let me re-phrase it.
An ERV is a endogenous retrovirus which can ''insert'' itself in an organism genome and remain dormant for the remainder of the organisms life. If this virus is happens to be insert itself into a sperm/egg cell, then the entire following generation of offspring will contain this retrovirus in their genome. Now, scientists have discovered that not only one ERV exists in the exact same location in a human genome and a chimp genome, but several do.
This leads to the conlclusion that chimps and humans had a common ancestor which had this ERV inserted into it's genome, resulting in all offspring to contain the retrovirus.
How can this be explained without evolution by common descent?

I asked you to use the search feature no? if for no other reason such as blatant lifting of someone else's (Aurora's) 'intellectual' property, at least to save ourselves webspace of the frequent spamming with queries that have been addressed to (to no party's satisfaction).

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1182674


How shameful!

all the best
Reply

Charzhino
08-19-2009, 01:16 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I asked you to use the search feature no? if for no other reason such as blatant lifting of someone else's (Aurora's) 'intellectual' property, at least to save ourselves webspace of the frequent spamming with queries that have been addressed to (to no party's satisfaction).

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-s...ml#post1182674


How shameful!

all the best
No answer? Thats ok.
Reply

جوري
08-19-2009, 01:23 AM
Originally Posted by Charzhino
No answer? Thats ok.
love those cojones after being caught 'plagiarizing' another member's words; if she herself didn't leech them off someone else.. did you bother open the page? it is a completely different thread by the same title.. and the answers are offered there... feel free to take a dive for a few days and resurface later with other equally intelligent queries of your own though!


all the best
Reply

Azy
08-19-2009, 03:57 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
ha? should I understand from this, that you have no interest in expounding on your illuminating articles and their relevance to speciation?
Take from it whatever you fancy, you usually do.
The articles were posted in relation to your assertion that all mutations cause a disease state. I disagree with your opinion and posted the articles above as a basis for my disagreement, the subjects of the articles I posted have mutations which are not disease causing.

Instead of telling me why you think I'm wrong you tend to go off on a tangent thus:-

Azy : These people have a mutation resulting in increased bone strength due to high bone density.
Skye: High bone density occurs as a result of osteopetrosis.
Azy : But these people don't have osteopetrosis, it says in the article. That condition has no relevance to this discussion.
Skye: Ha? So you don't want me to carry on whooping your behind?

You haven't really furnished us with any reasons or evidence as to why you think all mutations are disease causing.

Further:
Originally Posted by Encyclopedia of Molecular Cell Biology and Molecular Medicine p. 656
"Rare mutations arise de novo in the population each generation, breaking the molecular mechanism encoded by every gene in the genome in every possible way, most mutations being either neutral or deleterious to the gene's function; should the effect disrupt a critical physiological pathway, they are 'disease-causing.'"
According to that 'most', not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious to gene function and not all of those are 'disease-causing'.

I am simply suggesting that your statement "every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..." is false, nothing more.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Familiarize yourself of the difference between macro and micro-evolution ..
You haven't actually shown me anything to suggest there is a significant difference between them, only asserted that macroevolution doesn't actually happen.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Also even if I were to accept this as the ultimate truth it still doesn't explain the origins of things.. which is actually where Dr. Mullan's paper comes in..
Now I see why you brought up this article. I was right then in thinking we were speaking at cross purposes since the origin of things does not fall under the heading 'evolution'. Evolution is concerned with change in populations of organisms, not where those organisms came from in the first instance, you're thinking of abiogenesis.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I am still at a loss of your pursuit though, does it matter to you what I know to be factual or theoretical, what I accept as false or true? Any particular reason at all as to why you enjoy consuming my time?
It pleases me that people make decisions based on empirical truth, where such a thing is possible.
Reply

جوري
08-19-2009, 04:37 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Take from it whatever you fancy, you usually do.
Is that supposed to be deep? I fear the level-headedness of it is lost to me..

The articles were posted in relation to your assertion that all mutations cause a disease state. I disagree with your opinion and posted the articles above as a basis for my disagreement, the subjects of the articles I posted have mutations which are not disease causing.
I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all some cause diseases, some cause death, some confer benefits at the price of something else (sct) ex... none cause us to speciate.. you do yourself a great disservice by reading only what you desire between the lines..

Instead of telling me why you think I'm wrong you tend to go off on a tangent thus:-
Azy : These people have a mutation resulting in increased bone strength due to high bone density.
Skye: High bone density occurs as a result of osteopetrosis.
Azy : But these people don't have osteopetrosis, it says in the article. That condition has no relevance to this discussion.
Skye: Ha? So you don't want me to carry on whooping your behind?You haven't really furnished us with any reasons or evidence as to why you think all mutations are disease causing.
Again, you do yourself a great disservice, for this is what I'd actually written:

-- increase in bone density isolate to help those with osteoporosis, I fear has no relevance to speciation.. in fact increased bone density in and of itself is a form of disease called osteopetrosis..
here is the first website that came up:
http://www.osteopetrosis.org/


Also, do you understand the difference between in vivo and in vitro? shouldn't you be familiar with basic scientific concepts before you engage in a debate? We are talking about a manipulated biochemical process to stop a disease, not to help you back to ape or to super human!


Further:

According to that 'most', not all mutations are either neutral or deleterious to gene function and not all of those are 'disease-causing'I am simply suggesting that your statement "every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..." is false, nothing more..
See first paragraph and my many previous posts!
I don't need to delve into every mutation or enzyme or whatever and thus I have stated and allow me to re-quote myself:

I am not here to name every enzyme, or mutation, as I can guarantee listing some that will have you in your encyclopaedia for hours it won't change the outcome one bit.. also I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition... the problem is that you still can't synthesize what you are implying here to make sense to topic or have any relations to speciation.. all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am persoanlly concerned!




You haven't actually shown me anything to suggest there is a significant difference between them, only asserted that macroevolution doesn't actually happen.
And you are yet to show me one mutation/insertion/deletion/jumping gene ...etc that has caused speciation!
Now I see why you brought up this article. I was right then in thinking we were speaking at cross purposes since the origin of things does not fall under the heading 'evolution'. Evolution is concerned with change in populations of organisms, not where those organisms came from in the first instance, you're thinking of abiogenesis.
It pleases me that people make decisions based on empirical truth, where such a thing is possible.
evolution in the terms you desire us to subscribe to is a sequence of events involved in the development of one species from another.. where is the starting point I question?
Do we start at ape? where did ape come from and what did it evolve out of..

I am not interested in quasi science or in your case willful perversion of facts (which in your case happen to be a direct result of ignorance)...

.. bottom line is you can believe what you want.. you evolved from donkey, monkey, whale, whatever, go be happy oscillating between animal states.. I really fail to understand why you stalk me on posts or why this should matter to me personally?

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-19-2009, 07:32 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state..
You'll have to forgive me, I don't see any great distinction between
"every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..."
and
"All mutations cause a disease"

Also, I don't see any sense in your statement
"I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all"
Those silent mutations are still covered by your first statement, they aren't a different type of mutation, just not outwardly visible.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
evolution in the terms you desire us to subscribe to is a sequence of events involved in the development of one species from another.. where is the starting point I question?
I don't know, but that is a different subject. If you want to use a different definition of 'evolution' to the accepted one, feel free, just don't expect subsequent arguments to make any sense.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
And you are yet to show me one mutation/insertion/deletion/jumping gene ...etc that has caused speciation!
I've never claimed that one mutation would or could cause speciation. I suppose it is certainly possible but it would be much more likely that an accumulation of changes would cause reproductive isolation and thus speciation.

Anyway, you keep whinging about me not coming up with the goods even though this discussion is the result of a question I asked you, but hey ho, couldn't you just [read about it] and save us some time. I guess you've probably been through all that, but there's not much else I can say when you're so reluctant to share the reason why you "have problems with the scientific aspects of it", and seem to have arrived at an alternative conclusion to most of the scientific community.


As an aside, I have a question.
Hypothetically speaking, given say, a small cat population, an infinite amount of time and various environmental scenarios, could an infinite number of 'adaptive' mutations occur to the cat genome but it would always remain a cat?
Reply

جوري
08-19-2009, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
You'll have to forgive me, I don't see any great distinction between
"every frameshift, missense, nonsense, acrocentric DNA break etc has given us a state of disease..."
and
"All mutations cause a disease"

Also, I don't see any sense in your statement
"I never said 'All mutations cause a disease' state.. silent mutations don't do anything at all"
I have covered with enough expanse for your level, I need not mention any finite detail to someone who can compass so much and on a public blog of all places.. hence and let me re-quote:
Gossamer : I am not here to name every enzyme, or mutation, as I can guarantee listing some that will have you in your encyclopaedia for hours it won't change the outcome one bit.. also I see no relevance of the other articles, having resistant mice, or osteopetrosis, or FCH doesn't or the entire medical compendium still won't turn you into a different specie or a relative specie for that matter.. it gives you a medical condition... the problem is that you still can't synthesize what you are implying here to make sense to topic or have any relations to speciation.. all you do is give me personally a chuckle.. I am not sure as to how this affects other members, but you seem to tighten the noose around your own neck as far as I am personally concerned!
you are really in no position to question me on anything, given your ridiculous folly of quoting me NEJM per regard to therapeutic treatment for osteoporosis from which I am to magically draw relevance to evolution.

the relevance of the last comment per regard to silent mutation is to cement the fact that I haven't mentioned everything, its function and have no cause or reason to!

Those silent mutations are still covered by your first statement, they aren't a different type of mutation, just not outwardly visible.
I don't know, but that is a different subject. If you want to use a different definition of 'evolution' to the accepted one, feel free, just don't expect subsequent arguments to make any sense.
Can't make sense of this mindless drivel


I've never claimed that one mutation would or could cause speciation. I suppose it is certainly possible but it would be much more likely that an accumulation of changes would cause reproductive isolation and thus speciation.
Your thinking is superficial and fuzzy at best.. you haven't provided any logical steps that would make anything you resolve for other than poetic and inconclusive!
Anyway, you keep whinging about me not coming up with the goods even though this discussion is the result of a question I asked you, but hey ho, couldn't you just [read about it] and save us some time. I guess you've probably been through all that, but there's not much else I can say when you're so reluctant to share the reason why you "have problems with the scientific aspects of it", and seem to have arrived at an alternative conclusion to most of the scientific community.
Again, I am not whining about anything -- I'd go so far and kindly point out, that the only one who is doing any whining is you and loaning yourself to one hilarious blunder after the next.. from logical fallacies to irrelevant material. Even on two hours sleep, I am still more lucid than you.

As an aside, I have a question.
Hypothetically speaking, given say, a small cat population, an infinite amount of time and various environmental scenarios, could an infinite number of 'adaptive' mutations occur to the cat genome but it would always remain a cat?
what factor does time play? (a little wind and a little tide and a little sunshine?), and what environmental scenarios are you talking about and what are the means of these 'adaptive changes'?

your above proposed conditions for your hypotheticals are actually addressed in quite the detail by Dr. Mullan.. why don't you read the paper instead of bull ****ting for another five pages?

I am going to take a much needed afternoon snooze and hope you carry your pounding and abrading to some other thread.. I lost interest the day before yesterday!

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 08:40 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
your above proposed conditions for your hypotheticals are actually addressed in quite the detail by Dr. Mullan.. why don't you read the paper instead of bull ****ting for another five pages?
Are you going to continue with this ridiculous game? All you've said so far is :-
"A solid refutation of evolution is in there, you can't see it, the vast majority of reputable scientists can't see it and I'm not going to tell you where it is... but it's in there!"

Since we're going nowhere fast let me take a different approach.

Let's take your own opinion on scholarship, expressed in another thread:
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Scholars (men and women) to use the masculine in Arabic doesn't necessarily exclude the feminine (but I digress) I don't know who Tariq Ramadan is.. his name sounds suspicious .. nonetheless, if his opinion is shared by sunni scholars and he has graduated from an institution that produces scholars then he is.. otherwise he isn't...

can't become an architect and presume that it would also make you a scholar on marine biology...
We can see from Mullan's own CV that he has never achieved a qualification in any biological discipline, he's a specialist in astrophysics.

Is his opinion shared by other scholars? The NCSE says no, 97% of scientists agree that evolution has occurred.

The paper was published in the creationist journal 'Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'. Why not in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, surely that would be the best place to inform the world's misguided evolution supporters? (Come to think of it, why does that journal even exist when there is no such thing as evolution?)

In summary, his opinion is not shared by the vast majority of scholars, and he never graduated in any biological science; according to your standards he's not qualified to speak on the matter.
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Are you going to continue with this ridiculous game? All you've said so far is :-
you flatter yourself to think that parading your folly in public equates to playing games..

"A solid refutation of evolution is in there, you can't see it, the vast majority of reputable scientists can't see it and I'm not going to tell you where it is... but it's in there!"
argumentum ad populum! and begs the question as to your own qualifications and whether or not your beliefs should be contingent on your qualifications rather than merit!
Since we're going nowhere fast let me take a different approach.
pls do us all a favor and quit while you are ahead..
Let's take your own opinion on scholarship, expressed in another thread:

We can see from Mullan's own CV that he has never achieved a qualification in any biological discipline, he's a specialist in astrophysics.
irrelevant fact about the author who still has a doctorate (that you don't) and quite expansive in scientific details that compassed all the propositions of said theory in a logical concise fashion makes this yet another fallacy as I still haven't seen you tackle content! unless you mean to say that those who are accredited in evolutionary biology are the only believers in your brand of evolution? and that the content doesn't appeal to like scientific mind and I can be game with that and in such a case 'not all scientists' subscribe as you'd like to have us believe.. for you are yet to define to us what credibility is.. I believe the accrediting body decides that when it awards doctorate to individuals who have earned it not some snotty nosed preposterous individual whose every thread has revolved around some desperate appeal than valid reasoning!
Is his opinion shared by other scholars? The NCSE says no, 97% of scientists agree that evolution has occurred.
another argumentum ad populum!.. I don't know what these individuals consider 'evolution' it is a catch all phrase, and have no idea who goes around surveying individuals, what kind of pool of scientists they target etc.. but let's contrast to see if you'd benefit from the same style argument.
According to a recent study most doctors believe in God and an afterlife. This conclusion apparently contradicts earlier research which showed that in general, people tend to become less religious as education and income levels rise.

The survey by Farr Curlin, a doctor and instructor at the University of Chicago, of 1,125 U.S. doctors, found that 76 percent believe in God and nearly 60 percent in some sort of afterlife.




or




Scientists' Belief in God

http://www.livescience.com/strangene...tists_god.html

Who has vested interest in this style surveys? atheists and creationists? perhaps just folks with alot of free time on their hand such as you?..
can we maybe cut the crap?
The paper was published in the creationist journal 'Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design'. Why not in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology, surely that would be the best place to inform the world's misguided evolution supporters? (Come to think of it, why does that journal even exist when there is no such thing as evolution?)
It was published on ISCID
The International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design (ISCID) is a cross-disciplinary professional society that investigates complex systems apart from external programmatic constraints like materialism, naturalism, or reductionism. The society provides a forum for formulating, testing, and disseminating research on complex systems through critique, peer review, and publication. Its aim is to pursue the theoretical development, empirical application, and philosophical implications of information- and design-theoretic concepts for complex systems.


http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

'speciation' deserves to be heard, accredited or discredited as is the case with any other theory.. the world 'evolves' indeed and so should your minuscule brain? Nothing in science is etched in stone.. you'd subscribe to 200 year old beliefs without amending your knowledge as science becomes more expansive, then don't come and make your ignorance common place for everyone to pick on like a scab that itches!
we have a large data base of many things.. put anything on google (christianity) for instance and you'll get a zillion hit and some journals and even encyclopedia.. but I like that you seem to draw satisfaction out of such simplistic conclusions for you are indeed a simpleton!

In summary, his opinion is not shared by the vast majority of scholars, and he never graduated in any biological science; according to your standards he's not qualified to speak on the matter.
Whatever you have to say to yourself to rectify your beliefs is fine with me.. I am glad each and everyone one of your posts has been some desperate appeal to logical fallacies.. it will serve you well in the world..
as for my standards you are the last person to comment on them, just given how you misapprehend, mis-quote, and misconstrue.. and the level and lack of cohesion with which you carry your debates I believe can be topped by my four year old niece..

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
argumentum ad populum!
The problem with that is that I'm not using it as an argument for anything, just applying your standards to your argument.
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 05:31 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
The problem with that is that I'm not using it as an argument for anything, just applying your standards to your argument.
You don't know the first thing about my standards.. rather your own mind is so restrained by herd mentality, that you are in fact exactly what you despise only standing a diametrical opposite!
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
You don't know the first thing about my standards..
Well, again I can't be at fault if what you say is not representative of what you think.
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
rather your own mind is so restrained by herd mentality
Miss, I'm not in the slightest bothered by having to change my mind. If you came here with something resembling evidence or a coherent argument explaining why supernatural creation is a better fit for the evidence than the conclusions people have drawn up until now then I'm happy to listen to it.
If you're going to insist that any evidence or argument I present is genuinely scientific, clear and from the pen of someone who has credentials representing relevant expertise then you can't expect us to accept any less from you.

If you want to present a paper on an alternative to evolution by a theist biology graduate, feel free, I'll read the thing as many times as is necessary.

If you want to present a paper on abiogenesis coin flipping by an astrophysicist, forget it.
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
Well, again I can't be at fault if what you say is not representative of what you think
Only you can be faulted -- does the teacher take the blame for one fainéant under achiever?

.Miss, I'm not in the slightest bothered by having to change my mind. If you came here with something resembling evidence or a coherent argument explaining why supernatural creation is a better fit for the evidence than the conclusions people have drawn up until now then I'm happy to listen to it.
exactly what have people come up with that doesn't loan itself to some super natural explanation?

which one of those do you think is more cohesive and better than what we subscribe to.. pray do tell



or hailing panspermia



If you're going to insist that any evidence or argument I present is genuinely scientific, clear and from the pen of someone who has credentials representing relevant expertise then you can't expect us to accept any less from you.
repetitive echolalia is a serious medical condition, I suggest you get help.. your dislike of what is written on the account it stabs the core of your personal beliefs doesn't mean that the topic was addressed and ad nauseam.. I sometimes wonder of how far removed you are from the original topic, or if you have any idea what it is you are fighting for or against..

If you want to present a paper on an alternative to evolution by a theist biology graduate, feel free, I'll read the thing as many times as is necessary.

If you want to present a paper on abiogenesis coin flipping by an astrophysicist, forget it.
Is this meant to evoke some sense of concern on my part as to what you believe? echolalia and delusions of grandiosity plus tangential meandering .. fascinating!

pls for the last time, buzz off!
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 09:01 PM
You took your time getting round to posting those pics.

Are you aware of 'cognitive dissonance'?

I ask because I'm the one practically begging you to show me a reasonable critique of the scientific consensus (which is not the same as an argument ad populum) and I've yet to see one. Meanwhile you're telling me I'm the closed minded meanderer with delusions of grandeur as you casually dismiss 150 years worth of research and the conclusions of 97% of the most educated minds in your country.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
You took your time getting round to posting those pics.

Are you aware of 'cognitive dissonance'?
I do indeed, question is are you aware of cognitive conservatism?
I ask because I'm the one practically begging you to show me a reasonable critique of the scientific consensus (which is not the same as an argument ad populum) and I've yet to see one. Meanwhile you're telling me I'm the closed minded meanderer with delusions of grandeur as you casually dismiss 150 years worth of research and the conclusions of 97% of the most educated minds in your country.

Honestly, you couldn't make this up.
reasonable critique has been given in quite the expansive detail, I have gone personally over the mechanisms and questioned you on which of the proposed mechanisms has been noted to give us speciation of which you seem to know nothing so you'd blanket your ignorance with articles about osteoporosis or rat poison, and leave us to decipher what we may.. An entire article written with mathematical variables to account for each proposed aspects in evolutionary speciation. But it is too detailed to your liking, you prefer your ignorance and your crowd..

All the scientific disciplines are connected, we are not speaking of some subjective historical account or a narration, rather things that can be manipulated in vitro with E.Coli or liposomes or other vectors such (retroviruses) to yield unquestionable results and exonerate itself from the age old debate.. but rather than make sense at best, you prefer to either cast doubt on the person or ignore anything that questions your logic or lack thereof all together with every puerile and ludicrous ammo in the book, attack the scientist, use fallacies, give us meaningless conclusions from oxford citing exactly what you're staunchly against not a post prior, anything at all but simply sitting down reasoning and addressing the finite details and the bottom line is just simply given the ludicrous articles you'd quoted to make a point for yourself such as an in vitro research paper on proposed treatment of the management of osteoporosis from which I am to magically glean how speciation works in a manipulated fashion of all things.. there is no point for conversation with you.. if ALL the people think this way, then be happy you are with ALL people and buzz off.. why do you bother yourself so much with what others think or believe? are you that desperate for validation?.. begging is quite off putting.. again get a wife or a girl friend or a significant other and spend less time wasting people's time on a forum!

all the best
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 10:17 PM
I found this article interesting in regards to why people 'believe' as they do.. I won't comment on the author's notes, I agree with many of his points, I disagree on some.. but the bottom line is, it is a topic that comes down to .. I believe in Evolution, or I believe in intelligent design.. is there really room for beliefs and apologists in science?..


Why Do People Believe in Evolution?
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

Printer version | Email this article As we make our way through the pilgrimage called “life,” on occasion we stop to reflect upon the nature and meaning of our own existence, because such matters variously enthrall, excite, or intrigue us. Nowhere is this more evident than in regard to our ultimate origin. Few there must be who do not pause, at some point in their earthly sojourn, to ponder such topics as the origin of the Universe, the origin of planet Earth, the origin of various life forms on the Earth, and even their own origin and destiny.
Essentially, there are two fundamentally different, diametrically opposed, explanations for these phenomena. Each of these explanations can be viewed as a cosmogony—i.e., an entire world view, or philosophy, of origins and destinies, of life and meaning. One of these world views, known as the concept of creation, postulates that the Universe is here as the result of the purposeful, deliberate acts of a supernatural Creator Who—with wisdom, planning, design, and forethought—created the Universe and all animate and inanimate systems within it. An alternate and opposing world view, known as the concept of evolution, suggests that the Universe and all its animate and inanimate systems are here as the result of random, nonpurposive, naturalistic forces operating by chance over eons of time.
In 1960, George A. Kerkut, the eminent British physiologist and evolutionist, authored a small-but-powerful volume titled, The Implications of Evolution, in which he defined not a single theory of evolution, but rather two different theories of evolution. One of those theories he labeled the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to in the literature as “microevolution”), which suggests that minor changes, within narrow limits, can occur throughout all living things. While the Special Theory of Evolution allows for change within groups, it does not allow for change between groups. There is no controversy over this particular theory, which is accepted as correct by both creationists and evolutionists alike.
In addition to the Special Theory, however, Dr. Kerkut also defined and discussed what he labeled the General Theory of Evolution (often referred in the literature as “macroevolution”). After discussing the Special Theory, he contrasted it with the General Theory in these words: “On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ ” (1960, p. 157).
This is the idea commonly referred to as organic evolution, or simply “evolution.” Through the years, a number of investigators have defined evolution in a variety of ways. The same year that Dr. Kerkut offered his definitions, the renowned Harvard paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson wrote:

Evolution is a fully natural process, inherent in the physical properties of the universe, by which life arose in the first place, and by which all living things, past or present, have since developed, divergently and progressively (1960, p. 969, emp. added).
Previously, Dr. Simpson had defined the theory by suggesting:

First, there is the theory of evolution in the strict sense. This states that all living organisms have evolved from common ancestors in a gradual historical process of change and diversification. The theory rejects the notion that all organisms were designed and created at the beginning of time (1957, pp. 25-26, emp. added).
Notice the recurrent theme in the various definitions offered by evolutionists to explain their theory. First, evolution is regarded as a fully natural process. Second, no “external agent” (read “supernatural Creator”) is responsible for inanimate matter’s becoming animate; evolution “rejects the notion that all organisms were designed and created....” Third, all life forms have descended (evolved) from a common source that owes its own existence to inorganic matter. Fourth, evolution is a continual process of “change and diversification” which ultimately produces living organisms that develop “divergently and progressively.”
IS BELIEF IN EVOLUTION POPULAR?
Although atheistic evolution is not as old a viewpoint as creation, it has amassed a sizable following among certain segments of the population. Especially is this true in regard to the scientific community, where more often than not evolution is considered to be a fact proven beyond dispute. As one university biology textbook, used widely for almost two decades, suggested:

Organic evolution is the greatest principle in biology. Its implications extend far beyond the confines of that science, ramifying into all phases of human life and activity. Accordingly, understanding of evolution should be part of the intellectual equipment of all educated persons (Moody, 1962, p. 1x).
Yes, belief in evolution is popular in some circles. The question is: why?
WHY DO PEOPLE BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?
One of the most mind-numbing mysteries for those who do not believe in evolution is trying to understand the people who do. [Perhaps evolutionists feel the same exasperation in regard to creationists’ beliefs, but on that point I am less qualified to judge.] Such an observation is not intended to be derogatory, but is offered merely as a statement of fact. Many who believe in creation do so because they have seen the evidence that establishes the Creator’s existence. They understand that where there is a painting, by necessity there must be a painter. Where there is a poem, there must be a poet. Where there is a law, there must be a lawgiver. Where there is design, there must be a designer.
Because the Universe is intricately designed, creationists find it not only difficult, but impossible, to believe that it “just happened.” To them, suggesting that purely natural forces are capable of explaining the size, complexity, and organization of the Universe, and the delicate intricacies of life found within it, is illogical; the only rational conclusion is that there must have been a Grand Designer. Further, those who believe in creation do so because they have examined the empirical evidence, and are confident that a reasonable prima facie case can be made to support their conviction. Creationists contend that the evidence points not to a Universe that is self-created or self-explained, but to a Universe that is the result of creation at the hand of an omnipotent Creator.
As one who writes and lectures often on the topics of creation and evolution, I frequently am asked the question: “Why do people believe in evolution?” Often the question is phrased in what are intended to be complimentary terms: “Why is it that so many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?” Neither question is easy to answer because generally the querist wants a simple, concise answer. It is difficult for him to understand why people whom he accepts as “obviously intelligent” believe a concept such as evolution that he, personally, considers so unworthy of acceptance or recommendation by intelligent people. It has been my experience that rarely is there a singular response that can provide an answer to such a question, because rarely is there a singular reason that can explain adequately why a person believes what he does. Especially is this true in regard to belief in evolution.
At times, the controversy that centers on the topics of creation and evolution has generated more heat than light. This does not necessarily have to be the case, however. In an open society, the topic of origins, and the varying views that people hold on origins, ultimately will be discussed; in fact, they should be discussed. But because the subject matter has to do with deeply held convictions, emotions often run high. One good way to avoid emotional entanglement, and the “more heat than light” syndrome that generally accompanies it, is to work diligently to comprehend the other person’s position as completely as possible, and therefore to discuss it as accurately and calmly as possible in any given situation. That task is made easier if there exists—at the beginning of the discussion—a basic understanding of why the person believes as he does. Again, especially is this true in regard to belief in evolution.
While it may seem somewhat of a truism to suggest that people believe in evolution for a variety of reasons, realization of this fact, and a legitimate exploration of the reasons people offer for believing what they do, can go a long way toward a better understanding of opposing views found within the creation/evolution controversy. With better understanding comes improved communication. And with improved communication comes increased opportunity for dialogue—which can set the stage for the presentation of other viewpoints that perhaps have not been considered previously (e.g., in this particular instance, persuading the evolutionist to consider the evidence for creation).
As I attempt to respond to the question, “Why do so many obviously intelligent people believe in evolution?,” O hope to be able to provide a better comprehension of the system of organic evolution, and of the people who accept it. Included among the reasons why people believe in evolution are the following.
Reason #1
There can be little doubt that many today believe in evolution simply because it is what they have been taught. For the past century, evolution has been in the limelight. And for the past quarter of a century or more, it has been taught as a scientific fact in many elementary, junior high, and senior high schools, as well as in most colleges and universities. Marshall and Sandra Hall have offered this summary.

In the first place, evolution is what is taught in the schools. At least two, and in some cases three and four generations, have used textbooks that presented it as proven fact. The teachers, who for the most part learned it as truth, pass it on as truth. Students are as thoroughly and surely indoctrinated with the concept of evolution as students have ever been indoctrinated with any unproven belief (1974, p. 10).
In their book, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Bales and Clark confirmed such an observation. “Evolution,” they wrote, “is taken for granted today and thus it is uncritically accepted by scientists as well as laymen. It is accepted by them today because it was already accepted by others who went before them and under whose direction they obtained their education” (1966, p. 106). People believe in evolution because they have been taught that it is true.
Reason #2
To suggest that many people today accept evolution as true merely because they have been taught to believe it does not tell the whole story, however. Intellectual pride enters into the picture as well. Who among us does not want to present at least the appearance of being smart and well educated? Over the last century, we have been led to believe that if we wish to be considered intelligent, then we should believe in evolution, because intelligent people all over the world believe in evolution. As Henry Morris well stated the issue: “[T]he main reason most educated people believe in evolution is simply because they have been told that most educated people believe in evolution!” (Morris, 1963, p. 26).
Consider the hypothetical example of two college students discussing their professors and courses. One of the students, Joe, asks his friend, Mark, the following question: “Hey, Mark, do you believe in evolution? My professor says all smart folks do.” Honestly, what is Mark supposed to say? If he says, “No, Joe, I don’t believe in evolution,” by definition he has admitted to being outside the sphere of all the “smart folks.” On the other hand, if he says, “Yes, Joe, I do believe in evolution,” he may be admitting to a belief based not on an examination of the evidence, but on the idea that he does not wish to be viewed by his peers as anything but “smart.” Undoubtedly, many people today fall into this category. They do not accept evolution because they have seen evidence that establishes it as true. Rather, they believe it because doing so places them in the same category as others who are considered to be well educated and intelligent.
Reason #3
Further exacerbating the problem is the fact that evolution has been given a “stamp of approval” by important spokespersons from practically every field of human endeavor. While there have been those of renown from politics, the humanities, the arts, and other fields who openly have defended evolution as factual, in no other area has this defense been as pronounced as in the sciences. Because science has seen so many successes, and because these successes have been so visible and well publicized, scientists been granted an aura of respectability that only can be envied by non-scientists. As a result, when scientists champion a cause, people take notice. After all, it is their workings through the scientific method that have eradicated smallpox, put men on the Moon, prevented polio, and lengthened life spans. We have grown used to seeing “experts” from various scientific disciplines ply their trade in an endless stream of amazing feats. Heart surgery has become commonplace; organ transplants have become routine; space shuttles flying to the heavens have become standard fare.
Thus, when evolution is presented as something that “all reputable scientists believe,” there are many who accept such a statement at face value, and who fall in line with what they believe is a well-proven dictum that has been enshrouded with the cloak of scientific respectability. As philosopher Paul Ricci has written: “The reliability of evolution not only as a theory but as a principle of understanding is not contested by the vast majority of biologists, geologists, astronomers, and other scientists” (1986, p. 172). Or, as Stephen Jay Gould put it:

The fact of evolution is as well established as anything in science (as secure as the revolution of the earth around the sun), though absolute certainty has no place in our lexicon (1987, p. 64).
These kinds of statements leave the impression that evolution simply cannot be doubted by well-informed, intelligent people. The message is: “All scientists believe it; so should you.” And many do, because, as Marshall and Sandra Hall have inquired: “How, then, are people with little or no special knowledge of the various sciences and related subjects to challenge the authorities? It is natural to accept what ‘experts’ say, and most people do” (1974, p. 10). The simple fact is, however, that truth is not determined by popular opinion or majority vote. A thing may be, and often is, true even when accepted only by the minority. Believing something based on the assumption that “everyone else” also believes it often can lead to disastrous results. As Guy N. Woods has remarked: “It is dangerous to follow the multitude because the majority is almost always on the wrong side in this world” (1982, 124[1]:2).
Reason #4
Without a doubt, there are many who believe in evolution because they have rejected God. For those who refuse to believe in the Creator, evolution becomes their only escape. They generally make no pretense of believing it based on anything other than their disbelief in God. Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most famous evolutionists of the early twentieth century, suggested: “In truth, from the earliest stages of Greek thought man has been eager to discover some natural cause of evolution, and to abandon the idea of supernatural intervention in the order of nature” (1917, p. ix). Henry Morris noted: “Evolution is the natural way to explain the origin of things for those who do not know and acknowledge the true God of creation. In fact, some kind of evolution is absolutely necessary for those who would reject God” (1966, p. 98).
Sir Arthur Keith of Great Britain wrote: “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” (as quoted in Criswell, 1972, p. 73). Professor D.M.S. Watson, who held the position of the Chair of Evolution at the University of London for more than twenty years, echoed the same sentiments when he stated that “evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is incredible” (1929, 123:233). These kinds of statements leave little to the imagination, and make it clear that those who say such things believe in evolution not because of any evidence, but instead because they have made up their minds, a priori, that they are not going to believe in God.
In his text, Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny, the eminent United Nations scientist, A.E. Wilder-Smith, observed that “Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism, rightly or wrongly, have been used everywhere in the East and West, in the hands of the atheists and agnostics, as the main weapon against the biblical doctrine of origins” (1975, p. 31). For the person who stubbornly refuses to believe in God, belief in evolution becomes automatic. Similarly, opposition to God as the Creator, the Bible and His Word, and the system of origins the Bible describes become just as automatic. Whenever a person rids himself of God, he simultaneously (even if unknowingly) embraces evolution. By his disbelief, he has eliminated creation as an option regarding his origin.
Reason #5
Another reason people offer for their belief in evolution has to do with the fact that there is so much evil, pain, and suffering in the world. No rational, well-informed person can deny the widespread and unmistakable occurrence of “bad” things that happen, often engulfing those who seem undeserving of such tragic events. To some, no explanation from religionists—regardless of how elaborately stated or elegantly defended that explanation may be—ever will provide an adequate answer to the conundrum of how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God can allow atrocities to fill His specially created world.
Evolution, on the other hand, provides what appears to be a perfectly logical explanation for such a scenario. According to evolutionary dogma, throughout the history of the world various species (including man) have been engaged in a struggle for survival and advancement. Charles Darwin, borrowing a phrase from the English philosopher, Herbert Spencer, referred to it as “survival of the fittest.” The evolutionist—by the very nature of his theory—is forced to view the Universe and everything within it as the end result of numerous purposeless accidents. All living things, man included, exist on the Earth not because of any Grand Plan, but because of fortuitous occurrences that resulted from chance happenings in nature. And, to survive, and thrive, in such a world may seem to justify a “might makes right/strong subjugates the weak/to the victor go the spoils” attitude. It’s a jungle out there, and in the jungle it is the law of tooth and claw that prevails.
Since man is viewed as little more than a “naked ape” (to borrow the words from the book by that title, authored by evolutionary anthropologist Desmond Morris), why should he somehow be exempt from the perils that continually befall other species of animals? These animals live their entire lives with one eye looking over their shoulder, as it were, because they exist in a dog-eat-dog world with no set moral standard. Man, according to evolutionary theory, is no different. His claim to fame lies in the fact that (thus far) he stands on the last rung of the evolutionary ladder.
But nature confers on him no special rights, privileges, or protection. In a world where evolution is considered as true, and “survival of the fittest” is touted as nature’s way of weeding out the weak, it should be no surprise that evil, pain, and suffering exist. In fact, from the evolutionary vantage point, whenever competition occurs for such things as food supplies, adequate shelter, reproductive advantages, etc., humanity has to learn to cope with evil, pain, and suffering. Granted, at first this may sound harsh, but from the evolutionists’ perspective it is consistent, and offers an attempted explanation for the undeniable existence of “bad” things in our world. Unfortunately, all too often the answers offered by religionists for the problem of evil, pain, and suffering have fallen short of the mark, and as a result people have accepted evolution as providing a legitimate explanation for a very real problem in their lives.
Reason #6
As unpleasant as it is to have to admit it, some people believe in evolution because they have heard about, witnessed, or experienced firsthand the mistakes of religionists through the ages. Whether it is the offering of young virgins to an imaginary deity, the burning of alleged witches at the stake, or the adultery of a highly visible televangelist, the truth of the matter is that on occasion believers in God have set a very poor example—one that sensitive, thinking people naturally would have difficulty following.
To some, the very history of religion makes it suspect from the outset. Attempts to force people to accept a certain religion (as in the Crusades), or misguided attempts to squelch open discussion of important issues (as in the Catholic Church’s censure of Galileo), have left a bitter taste in the mouths of many. Add to that the hypocrisy of, or word spoken in anger by, a person who wears the name “Christian,” and the damage may be such that even in a lifetime it cannot be repaired. The result is that those who have been offended want nothing whatsoever to do with the God of the Bible, and as they reject Him, they also reject His account of the creation of the world in which they live.
Reason #7
While it is undeniable that some reject creation because of inappropriate conduct on the part of those who advocate it, nevertheless it is true that some reject God, and creation, to excuse or legitimize their own inappropriate personal conduct. In other words, they believe in evolution because it allows them to avoid any objective moral standard of behavior. It keeps them “out of reach” of any deity. It provides a subjective climate of situation ethics where any and all behavior, no matter how absurd or perverse, is acceptable. It nourishes a “do your own thing” attitude that precludes rules and regulations, in a vain attempt to circumvent the guilt that inevitably comes from doing wrong.
In the evolutionary scenario, humans are merely the last in a long line of amoebas, crocodiles, and orangutans resulting from fortuitous cosmic accidents. In such an arrangement, it is futile to speak of “personal responsibility.” There exists, in the grand scheme of things, no reason why one “ought” or “ought not” to act a certain way, or to do/not do a certain thing. Aldous Huxley stated the matter succinctly in his article, “Confessions of a Professed Atheist”:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find reasons for this assumption.... The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do.... For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom (1966, 3:19).
Were Huxley and his cohorts to abandon belief in evolution and accept the existence of God and the truthfulness of creation, it would have interfered with their “sexual freedom.” Realizing that, they freely chose instead to abandon belief in God. That left them with only one option—belief in evolution. It was not something they accepted because of the weight of the evidence. Rather, it was something they accepted because they wished to avoid any personal accountability to their Creator. Their actions belied their motives. As Guy N. Woods has remarked: “Convince a man that he came from a monkey, and he’ll act like one!” (1976, p. 514).
Reason #8
Lastly, we may state that some people accept evolution because they are convinced that it is the correct answer to the question of origins. They have examined the evidence and, on the basis of their examination, have concluded that evolution is the only plausible explanation for the Universe and all that it contains. These people generally are both sincere and open-minded. They are not attempting to rid themselves of the idea of God. They do not feel the need to be “intellectually correct.” They are not reacting to unkind treatment at the hand of religionists. They are not searching for a way to justify worldly behavior. They simply believe the evidence favors evolution, and thus have accepted it as the correct view of origins. What, exactly, is that evidence? Does it substantiate belief in evolution? And what is the creationist’s response to it? I invite your attention to future articles as we investigate these, and related, matters.
REFERENCES
Bales, J.D. and R.T. Clark (1966), Why Scientists Accept Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Criswell, W.A. (1972), Did Man Just Happen? (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Gould, Stephen Jay (1987), “Darwinism Defined: The Difference Between Fact and Theory,” Discover, 8[1]:64-65,68-70, January.
Hall, Marshall and Sandra Hall (1974), The Truth: God or Evolution? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Huxley, Aldous (1966), “Confessions of a Professed Atheist,” Report: Perspective on the News, June.
Kerkut, George A. (1960), The Implications of Evolution (London: Pergamon).
Moody, Paul Amos (1962), Introduction to Evolution (New York: Harper & Row).
Morris, Henry M. (1963), The Twilight of Evolution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Morris, Henry M. (1966), Studies in the Bible and Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Osborn, Henry Fairfield (1918), The Origin and Evolution of Life (New York: Charles Scribner’s & Sons).
Ricci, Paul (1986), Fundamentals of Critical Thinking (Lexington, MA: Ginn Press).
Simpson, George Gaylord (1960), “The World Into Which Darwin Led Us,” Science, 131:966-969, April 1.
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World).
Watson, D.M.S. (1929), “Adaptation,” Nature, 123:233, August 10.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1975), Man’s Origin: Man’s Destiny (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany Fellowship).
Woods, Guy N. (1976), “Man Created in God’s Image,” Gospel Advocate, 118[33]:514,518, August 12.
Woods, Guy N. (1982), “ ‘And be not Conformed to this World,’ ” Gospel Advocate, 124[1]:2, January 7.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/238
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 10:53 PM
You've gone to the effort of finding an article and I promise I will address it as well as I can tomorrow (it's late here) but could you tell me, in all honesty are you serious about the Mullan article?
Reply

جوري
08-20-2009, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by Azy
You've gone to the effort of finding an article and I promise I will address it as well as I can tomorrow (it's late here) but could you tell me, in all honesty are you serious about the Mullan article?

I haven't gone into any effort at all, and your promises hold little value, I think it an excellent read since it addresses exactly why this has become more of a belief than a scientific approach; judging especially by your own last few posts which are devoid of any scientific material; but attempt with an unflagging resolve to bully the reader into your beliefs for something as superficial as majority acceptance! ..
It isn't a debate, it is an observation and I figured it an easy read since as it deals with the philosophical and psychological aspects of things rather than the scientific which has proven quite a challenge for you and your predecessors to gauge with some lucidity..

Are you aware that there is a doctrine that dictates that reason is the right basis for accepting something as valid? I don't need to read Dr. Mullan's paper as he has voiced the concerns of many within the purview of macroevolution occurring at the level of the species in a more detailed fashion than many care to go into.. what you believe in the end is of no concern as this isn't about beliefs.. it never was!

I am probably the wrong person to target with your talk through one's hat, I have a B.S scanner and can cut quickly through the crap!

all the best
Reply

Azy
08-20-2009, 11:19 PM
Perhaps you should adjust the sensitivity of your scanner, it seems to have left you unable even to give a civil answer to a simple question. Goodnight :)
Reply

Uthman
08-21-2009, 07:50 AM
Thread closed on a temporary basis.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 02-27-2018, 05:19 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-22-2009, 05:38 PM
  3. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 03:43 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!