BS: The Delusion delusion.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:37 PM

At its most basic level, the Law of Fives states that, in any given pub, if I've had five pints I shall require at least another.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:39 PM

But, I suspect it is far from the majority of believers in a God, as some seem to contend. Most people who have a belief in a God that I know, go to church once and awhile, and go about living their lives much the same as non believers in a God do.

In which case, you really do have to ask yourself what the point of belief is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:56 PM

"In which case, you really do have to ask yourself what the point of belief is"

I do not doubt that most people, not just you and me, have indeed done what you suggest. They have merely come to different conclusions than you, as people "often do" with many aspects of life. And, I have no problem with that. But, as I see from your many posts on the topic (many stating basically the same case), that you seem to have such a problem "with that".

If so, I suggest that it most likely will remain your problem, not one of the believers in a God (who seem to be doing OK with their belief).

I would wager that that all the posting on mudcat will not make even a ripple of change at all. C'est la vie

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 07:59 PM

QUOTE
If so, I suggest that it most likely will remain your problem, not one of the believers in a God (who seem to be doing OK with their belief).

I would wager that that all the posting on mudcat will not make even a ripple of change at all. C'est la vie
UNQUOTE

Yep, that precisely demonstrates just what the Law of Fives is all about.... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:16 PM

I fear I'm all at sixes and sevens with your Law of Fives.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:22 PM

I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they want to believe, and I've said that several times. I do have a problem with people who are so convinced of the truth of their beliefs that they have no compunction about passing on those beliefs (or conniving in that passing on, by sending their children to faith schools for example) as truth to impressionable children in the form of settled doctrine. This is the only way in which religion can be perpetuated, and, frankly, it stinks.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM

"Yep, that precisely demonstrates just what the Law of Fives is all about.... :-)"

I see what you mean. Six is really five plus one, and four is five minus one, and on and on.

Strange I never saw that for myself. To have missed it makes me feel like a stupid bunt.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM

Steve, it's so simple even I can understand it! :-P

But then I have had decades to get my head around it .... the same as for Hofstadter's Pulitzer Prize winning book "Escher Godel and Bach - An Eternal Golden Braid"

"At its basic level, the Law of Fives is a practical demonstration that perception is intent-sensitive; that is, the perceiver's intentions inform the perception. To whatever extent one considers that perception is identical with reality, then, it has the corollary that reality is intent-sensitive."

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 09 Dec 10 - 08:58 PM

"I see what you mean. Six is really five plus one, and four is five minus one, and on and on. "

Careful, I fell into the Dark Side by staring at that for too long, and it took me ages to get out.

I can honestly say that it had no lasting effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec effec

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 12:46 PM

steve-the 5,s thing lost me too,though i think i began to get it with subsequent posts-but not enough to comment with confidence.
i,m sorry to upset you again but the christian faith is inclusive of passing that faith on, so if you truly accept that we can believe what we like, you will have to get over it.having said that i dont know any christian that will pin you to the wall and make you listen.
as to indoctrinating children;in school this is education .i suspect they get more than enough evolutionary theory presented as fact to balance out any notion that they might otherwise naturally have that there is a creator God.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 01:01 PM

The difference is that evolution theory is indeed fact, supported by mountains of hard evidence. Of course, you've admitted several times that you haven't studied it, so I suppose it comes as no surprise that you do that typical believers' thing of putting it on the same level as religious belief. Well, I'll go along with that just as soon as you provide me with mountains of hard evidence for the existence of God. Agreed?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Ed T
Date: 10 Dec 10 - 05:00 PM

"My father was a scholar!" brags the fool"
"My mother was a mare!" proclaims the mule"

Chinese proverb

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Dec 10 - 09:43 AM

the only "mountains"i have so far seen from what i have observed are more like anthills.where is your evidence of microbes to man evolution.you have probably seen the clip where dawkins is stumped by a "creationist"question,probably the others by his supporters alledging fraudulent editing.i doubt that is the case but either way the proffesser did,nt give a straight answer when he did finally respond.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Dec 10 - 10:38 AM

where is your evidence of microbes to man evolution

You don't seem to understand that evolution is not a single line. There are branches, extinctions and dead-ends all over the story. There are also myriad gaps in the record. Evolution is a story of diversification from common ancestry, not a progression from one living form to the next. It really is difficult to discuss this with someone who is rather proud to profess their ignorance of it, and I repeat my oft-made suggestion to you that you get a good book about evolution and have a look. We non-believers were forced to study the Bible after all. At least it would be voluntary in your case.

As for being stumped by creationist questions, well they are usually such dumb questions that they can have the effect of leaving one utterly speechless.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 10:43 AM

Evolution from a scientific perspective requires no evidence. It's a done deal if you respect what most biologists, physiologists and leading scientists say about it. Evolution requires no faith but has been hammered out into a sculpture of evidence-based reason by Darwin, despite what "Creationists" attempt to create which as they say in England is "absolute rubbish".

The bible is a purveyor of mythological proportions that do nothing to enhance scientific study but offer for those who obsessively adhere to it, an incoherent weapon that reinforces their imprisoned mind-set.

Still, enablers of fanaticism and reactionary claims, based on false religious premises, have drowned out the voice of reason in their strident rants and delusional arguments.

The "delusion delusion" is another way of promulgating this deluded rant by offering not a legitimate argument for its viewpoint but a head-in-the-sand
approach saying if we ignore it, it will all go away. I got news for them.

Atheism is polled as third in its mode of interest compared to Baptists and Islamists. It's growing and it's not going away.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Dave MacKenzie
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:19 AM

Atheists, Baptists and Islamists? An interesting combination.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: John P
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 11:24 AM

Pete, Creation Science was invented by a bunch of pushy Christians in order to justify their taking over local school boards and forcing the teaching of the Bible in science classrooms in public schools.

Your refusal to get educated on this subject makes you somewhat irritating when you continue to put Creationism forward as something that anyone should take seriously.

Please learn something about all this. Creationism is, arguably, an attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the United States. Wouldn't you rather be on the side of right and honor?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 12 Dec 10 - 12:21 PM

thankyou for your very wordy responses to my straightforward challenge, but which seem to amount to a lack of evidence,other than appeal to other "authorities"and my own lack of reading darwin/dawkins directly.
even suppose i were to read darwins books it would not mean you would consider the creationist case any more,would it steve?
and as i have also said before;you issue challenges but dont accept them yourself.my sources ie scientists who are creationists[though formerly evolutionist often]have read all those books and quote them,yet you dismiss them as oxymoronic-though i do note you are more polite lately,thanks.

stingsinger-if you have no evidence for evolutionism,i guess that makes it a faith position

i understand that historically it was a literal understanding of the bible among scientists that led to a great advance in practical science,as i think even atheists have sometimes conceded.by contrast,evolutionism has little impact on experimental science,that would not as well be the case by design.if you know otherwise;im sure you will say.

as to strident rants;ireckon you are more proficient at this skill than myself!

i am not in the least surprised by a rising interest in atheism.it is entirely in line with biblical predictions!i could give you chapter and verse if you like!
thankyou gentlemen for your continued interest which opportunes the sharing of my faith with you.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 05:14 AM

The Modern Bible

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 11:34 AM

pete, (since you don't use capitalization, i won't either) there is plenty of evidence for evolution whether you want to accept that or not, since creationism is built on a house of cards that contains no valid evidence for its views, and it proclaims from the rooftops the bellowing idea that faith equals ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 11:41 AM

Steve, it is futile to explain Evolution to those who are diametrically opposed to it because they haven't learned to think for themselves and prefer the inane ramblings of their Sunday Sermons delivered by fanatical babblers. It's a form of mental glossalalia which makes as much sense as the ravings of a drug-crazed street addict.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 01:59 PM

asertions ad nauseum.at least steves had some some substance to his even though lacking evidence.
ever heard the expression"argument weak,shout like blazes"[or mudcat
equivalent]
quite right stringsinger;dont need capitals for mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 03:11 PM

It has been well established that creation "scientists" misread and misquote actually evolutionary science, so if you're relying on them and not on the original material or any trust in the vast body of work that is accepted (not strictly on faith) in the scientific world, then your understanding of evolution will be entirely flawed.

If I may be so bold, I believe that what Stringsinger meant to say was "Evolution from a scientific perspective requires no further evidence to be accepted as fact." However, further evidence is accumulated every day. It's absurd to expect a Mudcat screen-length response to your "straightforward question". I suggest, as I have before, starting at the resources recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

~ Becky in Tucson
University of Arizona
Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 06:50 PM

asertions ad nauseum.at least steves had some some substance to his even though lacking evidence.
ever heard the expression"argument weak,shout like blazes"[or mudcat
equivalent]
quite right stringsinger;dont need capitals for mudcat.

You have this all the wrong way round. It's you making the assertions. All I can do is tell you what science has revealed to us (by dint of the painstaking gleaning of evidence over thousands of years). But you don't want to look at that. What you do is to assert that the universe/nature/life on Earth(whatever) are so improbable that there simply has to be a creator. In view of all the science we have (and, most tellingly, the fact of evolution), this simply doesn't make sense any more. All the time the jigsaw of the Big Bang is being put together, and all life on Earth in its beauty and complexity is explained in a two-line sentence describing natural selection. Your back is seriously to the wall, and that is because your assertion about a creator is not only infinitely more improbable than what science has so far yielded (I won't go over it again but I predict that you'll tempt me to) but is also completely bereft of evidence. Pete, your woolly posts have gone far enough. It's time to piss or get off the pot. Give us your evidence. Stop hiding behind "you lot won't believe it anyway." And, while you're at it, give us the names and credentials of some of these "creationist scientists" you're so enamoured of.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:03 PM

The Law of Fives is all about how our 'Reality' is based on our preconceived ideas of what we are looking for, and also what we reject and refuse to accept.

The human mind is programmed (the Evolution position is that those who had a low level of this ability did not thrive and thus died out) to
look for faces, now we have built relatively simple machines that can do that too. This is also seen as an attack on the indispensability of a magic sky fairy to solely make such entities.

If I tell you that this Image contains an image of Jesus, your brain is already programmed to look for human outlines, so even Atheists will see Jesus in the pose of Ascension. This simply explains why such images are regularly detected in toast, floors, walls, photos of snow fields, etc - it is an artifact of how the brain functions.

Further, our brain is also wired to reject or filter out things we insist on rejecting so that we refuse to acknowledge (viz - the gorilla on the basketball court research ), which is why those who have refused to study Science objectively, but treat it just like any other Religion (revealed unalterable facts, not a constant painstaking process of constantly rexamining), reject any possible understanding of Evolution. Further they deliberately 'misunderstand' (doubtless they think it 'funny') basic concepts, such as claiming that there is a 'direct line from slime to man', when such a claim is NOT Science, but merely their malicious (or just mentally incapable) twisting of The Science position, just to put down that change which they do not want to adapt to.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:29 PM

Brilliant stuff, Foolestroupe, but please tell me you didn't take a picture of a dog's arse just to make the point... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:53 PM

Steve,

Our Troll (current massive cut and paster in the BS threads) displayed his sense of humour by claiming it was a picture of me. Of course I was grateful for his claiming that I was a Christ Like figure, but he didn't get the real joke... That pic has been around for some time so I recognised it as one of the 'occult Jesus photos' series ...

I told the Narcissist to stop taking photos of himself in the mirror...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Dec 10 - 08:55 PM

Oh, and Steve - being brought up a Fundamentalist Lutheran, I was taught that the Mind of The True Believer sees God in Everything...

which also reinforces the Law of Fives thingy ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 12:43 AM

In a Single-Cell Predator, Clues to the Animal Kingdom's Birth

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 06:46 AM

That's a very interesting article. I suppose we have to be wary of the trap of convergent evolution (but I am getting rusty as time passes...)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 08:31 AM

It has been recently discovered, due to genetic coding being possible much faster and cheaper now, that many species that look alike (sea shell thingys, etc), are now in fact sufficiently distinct to be separate species of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:21 PM

hi becky.i read some of the articles on the NAS site which on the surface look quite convincing to the layman-if these objections to creation had not already been answered by qualified scientists.i dont know if you have ever visited creation.com but they would be more profitable for one of your learning to assess than my limited education.

steve-it would take too long to list creationist scientists and i,m sorry i dont know how to do the blue clicky thing but i,m sure you could find it on the aforementioned site-if you really want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

*Yawn* Just name bloody names, we'll lokk 'em up. Come on, scaredy cat.

You can be a working scientist (probably wearing a lab coat, doing the routine stuff and fetching the boiling tubes for the prof) and at the same time be a creationist. But you can't be a creationist scientist. Science is predicated on evidence, and there is no evidence for creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 03:52 PM

look 'em up. Mind you, lock 'em up... tee hee...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Dec 10 - 11:43 PM

"there is no evidence for creationism"

Don't worry Steve, just wait,and theytl make it up for you - like a suit ... :-P

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 03:15 PM

whats with the scardy cat steve.i told you where to find names.maybe its you that dont want his preconceptions challenged.after all i,ve looked on the unbelieving sites from the outright hostile to the more subtle.since you have dismissed my opinions as uneducated why not tackle those who are.
ref your post 11/12/10you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!.common sense to the common man tells you that anything made has an intelligent maker.if all you have to offer is your learning, untranslatable to the layman, why should i accept that when i can read things that do make sence to me?.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 05:58 PM

ref your post 11/12/10you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!

No, it's the fossil record that has the gaps and dead ends, not the theory. The theory is sound as sound can be. Evolution is the truth.

common sense to the common man tells you that anything made has an intelligent maker.

Well now, it depends on what you mean by "made." Once again, your lack of knowledge of the evolutionary process shines through. You developed from a fertilised egg which underwent a process of cell division and differentiation according to a blueprint that has taken billions of years to perfect, to end up with a human being. Not one natural law has ever been breached in the development of that blueprint. "Who made you" comes straight from that simplistic and mendacious Catholic document, the Catechism. As ever, you ask the wrong questions. Read some Darwin. You'll be amazed.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:13 PM

"you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!."

This statement makes no rational or logical sense. There is no connection between the two statements, except for an emotional one in the mind of the person making this claim.

This is another example of The Law of Fives reasoning style to make connived convoluted links 'beyond human understanding' to support preconceptions ... which succeeds very well.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:29 PM

Creation scientists and other specialists of interest

Scientists alive today* who accept the biblical account of creation
(list of unknowns follows)

THE WORLD'S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS
From Y1K to Y2K

# Most of the greatest scientists of the past 1000 years were Christians and creationists.
# To these scientists, Christianity was the driving force behind their discoveries.
# The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science.

Accompanying the text are full-page color graphics in JPG and PDF formats, containing pictures, lists of accomplishments, tributes by others and quotes by the scientists themselves. They make excellent transparencies for teachers and speakers. The full set of these graphics can also be purchased from the products page,

http://www.creationsafaris.com/wgcs_toc.htm -> [Problem loading page]

No list of names found ...

Products ->

Evolution: Possible or Impossible?
by Dr. James F. Coppedge
Not found in stores (out of print)
Available Only Here

The best book on the probability argument against evolution. Mind-boggling statistics. Written for the layman – easy to understand. Learn about proteins, DNA and the laws of chance. Never again doubt the Creator's wisdom!

The "Truth" is not "Free", apparently ...
~~~~~~~~~~

Real Science is not 'Mind Boggling', but Shamans often make this claim about how difficult what they do is ...

Real Science, of course, in order to be understood, needs to progress slowly and carefully, with much review, of ideas built upon previous ideas. However, if you already know all the facts, there is no point in wasting time learning anything different or new.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 07:37 PM

"# The Christian world view gave birth and impetus to modern science. "

Unless for several hundred years prior to now you wanted to believe that the Earth went round the Sun.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Dec 10 - 08:20 PM

"you admit yourself that evolutionary theory has myriad gaps and dead ends,so it makes no sense to me to say that creationism has no evidence!."

This statement makes no rational or logical sense. There is no connection between the two statements...

Yep, classic non sequitur, Pete. I spotted it but I thought I'd battered you enough. If you have evidence, let's have it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:15 AM

thanks foolestroupe for links notwithstanding negative comments.sorry one link difficult but there is still a lot of free "truth" on the site-as you put it!.

steve-sorry about some measure of misquoting you.i think i understood your analogy[?]but as the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end i dont understand how that supports macro evolutionary theory.
i read intro of origins yesterday.i wont promise to read it all-see how i get on.
i already noted p3 that darwin concedes that points he discusses could lead to conclusions directly opposite to which he arrived.
also admitting to some grave difficulties to his theory.all this before the discovery of DNA complexity!.
seems darwin had a lot more humility than dawkins.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 08:55 AM

Just because I gave a few quick links, doesn't mean that I don't believe that they are self delusional nutters/suffers of the Law of of Fives... I found no 'truth' - just irrational non-sequitirs typical of the Law of Fives self delusional types.

".a lawyer setting out to disprove the ressurrection and examining the NT documents arrived at the conclusion Christ did rise from the dead."

Yep Law of Fives again... as happened to Saul/Paul who had a mind flipo. (see Sargant, below) I have the book packed away.

Read "Battle for the Mind" -
SARGANT, William, Battle for the Mind:SARGANT, William, Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion & Brain-Washing 1957 - avail at http://annenberg.usc.edu/CurrentStudents/Resources/AbergResourceCtr/Books/S.aspx

also see http://www.freepdfdocs.com/index.php?q=Fitness+for+the+Mind+cover+page

explains how religious conversion works. This guy worked on people severely suffering from war trauma. His dad was a preacher. He took his class into a 'revival meeting', and by having them control the tempo of the clapping, took control of the emotions of the meeting, etc

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 09:04 AM

"the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end i dont understand how that supports macro evolutionary theory."

It does not forbid it - evolution can only use what's THERE NOW.

OK a few bits of damage that happen to allow some future possibilities when situations change are called mutations - and may be hidden there for unknown ages until those that possess it get an advantage - 'survival of the fittest' ... :-)

Fairly recent finding ... :-)

In Choanoflagellates, Clues to the Animal Kingdom's Birth - NYTimes.com (bit technical!)

some nutters will claim this to be a 'missing link' - but it's not missing NOW and evolutionary theory predicted this sort of thing WOULD EXIST anyway ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Dec 10 - 03:50 PM

the cell only has info for what it will be and no other end

Well now, this depends on what cell you're talking about. Every cell in your body, save for red blood cells which have no nucleus, contains in its nucleus the whole genetic blueprint for you. Differentiation of cells into tissues and organs dictates that there must be a mechanism for switching genes on and off (otherwise you'd be a massive great big blob of amorphous nothingness). Just think of the evolution that must have gone into developing not only the blueprint but also the control mechanisms for switching genes on and off. Wonderful stuff, mind-blowing even, and all triumphantly possible within the laws of physics. No God needed. Stick God into that lot and you end up not having to think about it and ponder it and marvel at it, and all within natural laws too. What a pity that would be.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 17 Dec 10 - 06:52 PM

dont worry foolstroupe;i was,nt implying any change in your position,just quoting your sarcastic[?]use of the word"truth"
war trauma and revivalism sounds interesting but i,m sorry my mind did,nt join the dots...
some do get converted while emotionally charged but a lawyer setting out to disprove the ressurection dont seem relevant to that idea.maybe if i read the source-but i can,t read everything.
i did read the"bit technical"link.interesting that it mentions chimps/humans.yesterday i was reading how a recent study revealed a lot less similarity!.
does,nt a mutation mean losing info that may benifit in some circumstances?would not info gain be needed for macro change, however small the progress?
steve-while admiring your science knowledge,your conclusion seems entirely a bias blurb to do dawkins proud.

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 12:15 AM

"(otherwise you'd be a massive great big blob of amorphous nothingness)"

Taking into account the level intellectual ability manifested by the Science Deniers.... Daddy, are we There yet?

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 06:13 AM

does,nt a mutation mean losing info that may benifit in some circumstances?would not info gain be needed for macro change, however small the progress?

Nah. You just don't get it at all. A mutation occurs in an individual. An individual is just one of hundreds, or thousands, or millions, or thousands of millions in the population. A mutation in an individual has the potential to increase "info" [sic].

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 07:08 AM

... and then THAT individual, or descendants to whom that 'info' was passed, may have the ability to 'resist something'. It was discovered that some individuals, no matter the level of exposure to HIV/AIDS, did not contract the disease. Eventually, (to put it in very simple layman terms) it was discovered that they had a mutation that changed the surface structure of their cells, which meant that the virus was not able to 'latch on' so easily to the 'bits that were missing' due to the mutation... 'survival of the fittest' in a sense...

No Steve, don't beat me for using that term .... I was just trying to lay out the chain of causation simply ...

Subject: RE: BS: The Delusion delusion.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Dec 10 - 01:11 PM

If that mutation confers an advantage that makes it more likely to be passed on via sexual reproduction it is indeed a case of "survival of the fittest." Not how Darwin would have put it, but at least it's in the spirit of the thing.