 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Darwin's Witnesses
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:56 PM The Snail The Snail The Snail The Snail You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk. As you clearly understand very little of Darwin's work, I shall let that particular piece of stupidity pass for now. Note: for now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:49 PM ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin. You see, twat features, this is the thing: there is no parallel, no equivalence whatsoever, between your adherence to evidence-free, creationist, believer bullshit and good, honest science. None. Actually, I think I might just have mentioned that before. Now, pete babe, you rattle on elsewhere about irony. Well let me tell you a bit about irony, you silly, useless, thoughtless, brainless twerp. You diss science at every opportunity. Yet you are desperate to make equivalence between science, which you abhor so, and religion, which you mindlessly love so. Can't you see it? You are making a fool out of your own beliefs. Hardly surprising, since you are such a fool yourself. Have you a hole you can crawl into? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: frogprince Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:35 PM " If he can blow off the kangaroos he can blow off the camels" EEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWW |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 06:45 PM Perhaps, in my mirth, I miscommunicated. I totally got your point because I have tried it several times in the past week or so and I saw Bill Nye make the same point several times on Tuesday Night. If he can blow off the kangaroos he can blow off the camels. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM I think that you miss the point, Jack. Pete, and his fellow fundamentalists, believe that they are in possession of 'absolute truth' - which is contained within the pages of the Bible. They make the (wilful?) mistake of choosing to believe that science expresses a competing form of absolute truth - which, of course, it doesn't because all scientific findings are, in a sense, provisional (new discoveries have often led to new perspectives on earlier findings). But if the Bible got the 'truth' about camels wrong then it can't represent absolute truth, can it? Doesn't matter if the camels were hiding somewhere! By emphasising the anachronistic camels, I'm only playing by pete's rules. Get out of that, pete! "Anachronistic camels"! Now there's a phrase I don't get to write every day! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Don Firth Date: 06 Feb 14 - 05:09 PM They lurked in the underbrush--which is quite a trick in the desert. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:43 PM Shimrod, You can't get him with that!! If the kangas could get from where the ark landed to Australia without leaving a trace (pete & Ken Ham's explanation of how they got there) surely a few camels could hang out in Israel on the QT for a thousand years or so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 06 Feb 14 - 03:33 PM Ah, pete, there you are! Did you read my post of the 5th Feb? Or did it get lost among all the wearisome, petty, childish squabbling? Anyway, it was about the unreliability of 'historical' accounts in the Bible. If you missed it, here it is again: "Our mate pete - or rather the fundamentalists he follows on their websites - are continually pointing out, or obsessively searching for, 'flaws' in the scientific account of evolution. They are desperate to believe biblical accounts of "creation" instead. But now it appears that the Bible doesn't always (?) contain "true" accounts of "history" either. For example, researchers at Tel Aviv University have recently discovered that: "Camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE, centuries after they were depicted in the Bible as Patriarch-era pack animals." You can read about it here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/ Don't know how to do "blue clickys" - just cut-n-paste it into your browser." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 02:53 PM pete, I've seen behind the curtains of the source of your arguments. The man is lying. He knows that what he is doing is not science. One can easily tell that from the way he avoided the data and the questions posed to him. I know he claims to be doing that to bring people to Jesus. Tell us please, as a thought experiment, is it a good idea to lie in ministry? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 06 Feb 14 - 01:13 PM ah, snail, you stole my thunder, when you spotted steves religious devotion to Darwin. and did you spot the irony...or is it hypocrisy? ...of jacks post.........."pompously lecturing me....!? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Feb 14 - 12:58 PM If you insist on not biting I can't enjoy myself. Miserable bugger. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:18 AM I started it. I said "gray" :-D Carry on! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Feb 14 - 09:02 AM Antiquated? Modern? I was differentiating between English and some local dialect you seem to have. If you hadn't noticed, you started it as usual. I'd leave out the "modern " bit if I were you. An article I was reading the other day was questioning how far Carolina had progressed socially and politically since they executed a child for being black back in the 1940's. But I digress. Darwin did exist and he had a huge beard, grey or, as you say, gray. Existing. That's the key! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:14 AM Perhaps TheSnail, if you were to take the trouble to explain your criticism, starting with who it is addressed to, you may have a better chance of getting the information you are requesting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 06 Feb 14 - 07:10 AM Why yes Ian, I would be happy to bicker with you on the basic meanings of words, That is so constructive! I especially enjoy it when you bicker over the differences between antiquated English and modern spelling. Others may think that you are just rudely and kindly trying to be irritating. But it is all in good fun isn't it? Sadly, I have other things to do at the moment, I'll get back to you on that as soon as an appropriate block of time opens up. If you would be so kind as to look the words up yourself in the mean time and try to look at the context, that would be lovely. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 06 Feb 14 - 04:55 AM Evidence, please! ==================================================================== Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw - PM Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk. ==================================================================== |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Feb 14 - 03:19 AM What is pseudo religion? As religion can be described as pseudo reality, it is easy to get into a logic circle if you aren't careful. Jack. The word is grey, not gray. I do wish the colonies would treat our legacy with respect...... Whatever the colour, Darwin had one eh? You don't say? Well well. Bugger me. Just cover me in chocolate and throw me to the lesbians. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:05 PM "well, mustn't be argumentative" Indeed! It begs the question, "Why talk to him at all?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:29 PM Mr. Shaw, you are the one equating "Christ" with Darwin. Evidence, please! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:25 PM "Mr. Shaw is equating pete's taking offense to taking Jesus' title in vain to his own offense at pete "taking Darwin's name in vain." Doesn't that indicate to all that Mr. Shaw is demonstrating a religious attachment to Darwin?" Wrong again mate. Mr Shaw, as you prefer to call him (presumably to indicate that he is beyond your personal "pale") is merely pointing out that my misusing the name of Pete's sacred character, in whom I do not believe, is just the same as Pets's dismissive references to Darwinism, whose work he constantly derides. It is a matter of mutual disbelief, not of equating beliefs. Steve is of course correct. I don't share Pete's religion, so why would I respect its mythical characters, in fact, why SHOULD I? If Pete ever shows the minutest respect for any of the honest, hardworking scientists who have gathered evidence in support of evolution, I might change my attitude, but since he never has I surmise he never will, so he can take his comments on my language, roll them up into a tight cylinder and ............well, mustn't be argumentative, eh Jack? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 06:03 PM Fine with me. I'd rather be ignored than pompously lectured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:46 PM Sorry Jack but you're last post makes no sense at all. Don't think I'll bother with you anymore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:41 PM Steve Shaw There is no wanker on earth like the wanker who sees equivalence between religion and science. Precisely my point, Steve. I wish you would stop doing it. (although I would never call you a wanker. Your private life is your business and I leave the name calling to you. You are so much better at it.) You're here for fun? If letting the likes of pete and Jack make you look an eejit is your idea of fun so be it. Each to their own. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Stim Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:00 PM Pseudo-science and pseudo-religion are the same, insofar as both involve the cynical taking advantage of the gullible. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:18 PM >>Jack, if you are still working with your science-lite that you are inventing so as not to confuse poor pete's befuddled brain with the real thing, then you can say whatever you like. If you want to work with real science, then I suggest you do your own research and avoid any definitve pronouncements until you have a better idea of what you are talking about.<< Did I say I wanted to "Work with real science?" I am just having an argument on an internet forum. Are you doing real science by pompously lecturing me? Incidentally, under what authority are you speaking for "real science." Are you a member of Steve's priesthood? Because simply being dogmatic as you are now, is in my mind, not a very scientific, or polite way to behave. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:09 PM " Wacko and Snail shall" Disregard for the Mudcat. Mr. Shaw, you are the one equating "Christ" with Darwin. That is your dogma and yours alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 05 Feb 14 - 03:00 PM Well, leopards don't change their spots, as they say, chickens come home to roost, etcetera (I love cliches). So it's heartening to see the lesser intellects on this board reverting to type. There is no wanker on earth like the wanker who sees equivalence between religion and science. The twain cannot meet. Two such personages have posted here today. Wacko and Snail shall, of course, remain nameless. Incidentally, Gastropodus insensibilis, I have stated on several occasions that I come here for fun. To suggest that I would take offence at any of pete's multifarious inanities is risible. To indicate that a comment that someone has made has the effect of making that someone look like a complete oaf (their doing, not mine) is not to take offence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:45 PM in the words of Tim Minchin (from the poem "Storm") Hm that's a good point, let me think for a bit Oh wait, my mistake, it's absolute bullshit. Science adjusts its beliefs based on what is observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 12:07 PM Jack, if you are still working with your science-lite that you are inventing so as not to confuse poor pete's befuddled brain with the real thing, then you can say whatever you like. If you want to work with real science, then I suggest you do your own research and avoid any definitve pronouncements until you have a better idea of what you are talking about. I really have things I need to get on with. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:55 AM Musket Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard? Well, Steve associated Darwin with Christ. I think it is Evolution itself that more closely corresponds to the God figure but, broadly speaking, yes. I forgot to mention the priesthood of "hard working scientists." that he is quick to defend against disrespect. Taking the name of a real person in vain isn't nice. That is rather the fundamental difference between religion and science. In religion, you are not allowed to question your central God/entity/principle or whatever. In science you are positively obliged to do so. Steve does not allow a word to be said against Darwin or Dawkins or the truth of evolution. your extrapolation can only be the slime you guys leave in your path I think you've been spending too much time with Mr Shaw. You're picking up his style. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 11:31 AM BTW, I would have no hesitation in classifying Creationism as pseudo-religion. Mr Ham presents a view of the Bible whereby he and his organization are the only arbiters of what is to be taken "literally" Genesis = science text, Psalms = poetry, Leviticus ancient writings that don't apply today. As little as you seem to care about it. I'd bet you care more about the contents of the Bible than Ken Ham does. He only seems to care about the the words of the Bible selected by and filtered through him. Ken Ham is the religion. "Creationism" is a lie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:58 AM Thank you Jack. For both posts related to what I was saying. And I will indeed agree that pseudoscience could well be on the way to everything you say. Just as Creationism is pseudoscience! It is certainly no different in the way you suggest but I would add that, up to now anyway, it doesn't seem to urge anyone to harm others. I do await the time when we have the Atkins vs Weight watchers wars though :-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 10:04 AM "For every nutter scientist you can name there will be dozens of religious nutters. The point about science being the new religion will never be true until scientific leaders are as bad as religious leaders." Yes of course there will always be more religious nutters than scientists who are nutters. The barrier to entry is much higher for science. There are courses and degrees and peer reviews etc. It takes a lot of hard work and money to become a scientist. Whereas to be a preacher, all you have to do is stand on a soap box and preach. In fact, I've seen it done without the soap box. On the high end, in western countries at least, there are worries about pseudoscience taking the place of religion in the area of separating the gullible from their cash. Diet programs, to baldness cures, to Gatorade, to sneakers promise that through technology you can be a better person for a couple of dollars and no effort. How is that different from paying the Church a few bucks so that you can buy someone's way into heaven? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:49 AM >>>Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard?<<< Darwin was a bloke with a long gray beard. :-) Mr. Shaw is equating pete's taking offense to taking Jesus' title in vain to his own offense at pete "taking Darwin's name in vain." Doesn't that indicate to all that Mr. Shaw is demonstrating a religious attachment to Darwin? Unbelievers don't care. Mr. Shaw obviously cares to an extraordinary degree. All of that said, this, for me is a welcome development. This forum would be a much calmer place if pete would just stop talking to his best candidate for conversion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:33 AM Indeed Dave I was wrong, My apologies to you and Stim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:28 AM Mr Snail. Thank you for the indication of what the hell you were talking about. My estimation of your intelligence has increased by orders of magnitude. Does it take the whole genome being change for a "useful change" Or as Mr Ken Ham would say a change in function to be manifest? I was talking about combinations of the four letters within individual genes, which are not all that complex, as opposed to whole genomes which are of course complex systems of genes. I was thinking about the combinations of the four letters genes required to trigger any particular trait. Maybe that is orders of magnitudes off. But the genes for the membrane around a single cell have been around for a couple of billion years. In many creatures they reproduce many times a day. There are billions of them in your gut for example as per Mr. Nye. Those are a lot on reproductive events. Of course the more complex and recent the gene sequence, the fewer times it has had a chance to show "useful mutation". But the numbers in my mind are high enough to make the emergence of what pete might refer to as "new information" or Ham might call "new function" more likely than not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Feb 14 - 09:16 AM Yeah, I'm sure he was referring to the Scientific Racists of today who did not participate in the murder of millions. My bad. :-) Jack, if that is an attempt at ridicule I am afraid it has backfired. I suggest you look at Stim's link which confirms he was referring particularly to William Shockley who was born in England, to American parents and brought up in California. Nothing to do with Germans, either Nazi or otherwise. It was indeed your bad. (Is there something to show an absence of smileys?) DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Feb 14 - 08:24 AM It isn't every day I get confused by a snail, although I had escargot as a starter the other night. Are you saying Steve Shaw is setting up a religion with Darwin as the bloke with a large grey beard? Taking the name of a real person in vain isn't nice. Taking the name of a fantasy figure in vain isn't nice either but only insomuch as upsetting the feelings of someone with a delusion. pete makes up for his embarrassment regarding his beliefs by putting reality on a similar pedestal. That seems to me to be perfectly clear in terms of Steve's comment. Nothing wrong whatsoever on what he said, and your extrapolation can only be the slime you guys leave in your path If we have to go through life figuring out how not to upset people who by their very nature are being irrational, we won't have time to drink beer. And that, if nobody noticed, is the real holy grail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Dave the Gnome Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:48 AM Thanks, Stim. Seriously. It was all I was asking and you have now answered civilly. Shockley does seem to be a nutter as well. I think I made the comment before and it is worth repeating. For every nutter scientist you can name there will be dozens of religious nutters. The point about science being the new religion will never be true until scientific leaders are as bad as religious leaders. Which they are are not by a long chalk. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:40 AM I was going to comment on Steve Shaw's post of 04 Feb 14 - 03:56 PM - a few random insults, a reaffirmation of his faith in the Truth of Evolution and absolutely no science whatsoever but he has managed to surpass himself - and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk. You couldn't make it up. Darwin = Jesus The Origin of Species = The Bible Evolutuion = God Dawkins is his Prophet. Why do you insist on living up to pete's idea of an Evolutionist? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: TheSnail Date: 05 Feb 14 - 07:38 AM Jack the Sailor But just saying that I am wrong is just pointless and rude. Jack, you have already admitted that you are making up your own simplified version of science just to try and convince pete of the error of his ways so I don't see how you can expect to be taken seriously. To describe your assertion that "there are trillions of reproductive events so it is probable that all combinations have occurred" as "wrong" doesn't really do it justice. "Bizarre" would be better. Do the maths. Guess a few numbers. Ir doesn't have to be accuate, a few orders of magnitude each way is close enough. Life on Earth probably started about three billion years ago. Here are some genome sizes to get you started ftp://www.fourmilab.ch/pub/goldberg/sizes.html . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Musket Date: 05 Feb 14 - 05:27 AM Oy pete! How dare you tell people not to take Christ's name in vain? He is your delusion, not the delusion of respectable people. More disgusting things done in the name of that fictitious character than any real person. Mind you, onlookers such as yours truly can appreciate the "love" bit. A pity most so called Christians can't. As Jack The Sailor gave me a word to the wise, let me return the favour. You put a sentence in quotes then attributed it to me. Err.. That isn't my quote oh wise one. Hope the storms aren't too weird Steve. Don't forget it's divine retribution for questioning the word of The Lord and all that. There was me thinking it was all the money Tje Vatican makes out of chopping down the Amazonian rain forest..., (and the other million plus factors. Although politicians and clerics claiming it is retribution for approving gay marriage isn't one of them. ) Looks impressive in the papers all the same. It has a knock on if more snow here in Tge French Alps. Yippee !!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 05 Feb 14 - 04:22 AM Our mate pete - or rather the fundamentalists he follows on their websites - are continually pointing out, or obsessively searching for, 'flaws' in the scientific account of evolution. They are desperate to believe biblical accounts of "creation" instead. But now it appears that the Bible doesn't always (?) contain "true" accounts of "history" either. For example, researchers at Tel Aviv University have recently discovered that: "Camels were first introduced to Israel around the 9th century BCE, centuries after they were depicted in the Bible as Patriarch-era pack animals." You can read about it here: http://www.timesofisrael.com/camel-archaeology-takes-on-the-bible/ Don't know how to do "blue clickys" - just cut-n-paste it into your browser. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST Date: 05 Feb 14 - 01:37 AM Yup. Dismissed it without understanding it. I called that one didn't I! Want another of the thousands that you won't understand (but will debate anyhow)? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,Stim Date: 04 Feb 14 - 10:03 PM William Shockley was both a Nobel Prize winning scientist and a racist. He claimed that people of color were genetically degenerated from the superior white race and he advocated sterilization. I'd heard him say so myself. He also seems to have advocated that the Germans be spared the atomic bomb, and that it be used on the Japanese based on their race. You can read about the racism hereWilliam Shockley's NYT Obit, and the A-bomb business is mentioned on his wikipedia page. Here is a bit of background on Eugenics and Physical Anthropology here in the States. The website that it is part of a very good website on the race and racism over the years. My original point, which has been lost, had to do with the idea that people tend to expect science to provide the same things that once were promised by religion--prosperity, deliverance from evil, elimination of disease, and the ability to fly thru the heavens--well, we got the last one, but as P.F. Sloan once pointed out, "You can leave here for four days in space, but when you come back, it's the same old place." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:38 PM "The wording was "Championing the idea of a master race, didn't go out of style with the Nazis." " Yeah, I'm sure he was referring to the Scientific Racists of today who did not participate in the murder of millions. My bad. :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:15 PM and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future You take Darwin's name in vain, worse, serially misrepresent him, all the time, so you're a fine one to talk. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Steve Shaw Date: 04 Feb 14 - 06:13 PM in gen 2 both are spoken of as being formed of the ground, so there is nothing surprising in animals being useful in medicine. Aside from the fact that this statement is a classic non sequitur, I thought you didn't believe in "abiogenesis"? Make yer bloody mind up! a mutation does not "by definition" produce new info, but in virtually every case deletes it Yes, well you see, pete, different "info" is new "info" if it has not occurred before. Christ knows what else it could be. And, dearie me, a mutation will occur in isolated individuals, not the whole population. Nothing is thereby "deleted" from the gene pool, which is the whole point. The new "info" sits in there alongside the existing "info" and the gene pool is enriched. Natural selection may delete "info" from the gene pool (including useless mutations), but mutations won't. Now as I suspect that you wouldn't be able to follow the plot of Chapter One of The "Adventures Of Spot The Dog", all this will be lost on you, and you'll be back any time soon with more "info" nonsense. It's a good job I'm so patient with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:53 PM I think your problem in thinking about genetics is referring to it as "information" Mutation is not new "information" it is and alteration of the genetic "code" with may or may not lead to genetic differences in the offspring. A mutation is change, which makes it by definition "novel" whether it is "information" or not depends on whether or not it produces and trait and the trait is passed on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Darwin's Witnesses From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 04 Feb 14 - 05:39 PM did anyone understand the snipped piece from "guest"? only bit I got from it was that some mutations have been found to be beneficial,- as opposed to a gain of information. if that was in there it is hidden from a layman like me. perhaps you should contact Nye before the debate, with this proof. and please leave out using Christs name in vain if you want a reply in future jack..there is nothing in the bible that points to the physical makeup of men and animals having to be radically different. in fact in gen 2 both are spoken of as being formed of the ground, so there is nothing surprising in animals being useful in medicine. yes, guest, I have read a bit of her stuff. I did not read of her offering any explanation as to why experimentally verified science must give way to evolutionary stories. she just spoke of a sense of wonder..... oh, and also of the resistance to her findings for some time. jack unless the tech snip above does demonstrate novel info from mutations , a mutation does not "by definition" produce new info, but in virtually every case deletes it, though that may be beneficial to an organism. a change certainly, but rarely, if ever by new info arising. |