Posted on 05/30/2002 7:40:53 AM PDT by Gladwin
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Two House Republicans are citing landmark education reform legislation in pressing for the adoption of a school science curriculum in their home state of Ohio that includes the teaching of an alternative to evolution.
In what both sides of the debate say is the first attempt of its kind, Reps. John A. Boehner and Steve Chabot have urged the Ohio Board of Education to consider the language in a conference report that accompanied the major education law enacted earlier this year.....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I've answered you multiple times. You can't see the answer. I understand. I thought you were one of those that saw the pattern in the SIRDS but could not see the image in the SIRDS. I now doubt my assessment. You may not even see the dots.
I don't know. I did not cite Wells. I cited a link to Duke University chemistry resources. This was from a link JediGirl gave. You apparently didn't read it or you may not understand oxidation/reduction. I answered your problem with the atmosphere and BIF. Please note: Oxygen is not needed for oxidation to occur or for something to be considered oxidizing.
The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant.
Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed...
To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
God hates IDIOTS, too!
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs.
Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc.
For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number.
In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once.
All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires.
And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial.
Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE.
Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events.
And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
Guys, we need flight feathers, and wings, and specialized bones, hearts, lungs, and tails, and we need em NOW; not two years from now. Everybody ready, all together now: OOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT.
But it gets even stupider.
Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could SEE them, they wouldn't BE witches...) This kind of logic is less inhibiting than the logic they used to teach in American schools. For instance, I could as easily claim that the fact that I'd never been seen with Tina Turner was all the proof anybody should need that I was sleeping with her. In other words, it might not work terribly well for science, but it's great for fantasies...2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
That the designer may have been less than perfect, but was still way ahead of YOU. What life forms have YOU designed this week? What about last week or the last two years?
Granted evolution is BS and some sort of a design theory will ultimately end up being generally accepted: does anybody actually believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God created all of this earth's creatures? Including black flies and chiggers?? I assume I'm not the only person on Earth who has a hard time with that. The evidence as I see it points to a past age in which genetic engineering and re-engineering was being practiced by more than one or two parties and, occasionally, with bad intentions. There appears to be no better place on Earth to view some of this sort of evidence than Australia. In particular, some of the things you see there do not make sense logically given the usual theories about how animals operate. Why would a spider or an octopus the size of a quarter require the power to kill humans? I mean, a spider's never going to EAT a human... The funnel-web in particular eats insects. In fact, aside from explaining why such a creature would evolve the power to kill humans, the evolutionist has a problem at least as big in explaining why such a creature would even have the aggressive attitude it has towards much larger creatures. Granted the creature can kill humans, it will usually be killed itself in the process and has nothing to gain from it. It's a lose/lose situation, the opposite of symbiosis. You'd think evolution would have to favor those spiders which AVOIDED larger creatures which it could not rationally hope to eat or even live after attacking, and that after a few hundred generations, you'd never see that sort of behavior in them. Check out: http://www.discovery.com/conversations/creature/archive/creature990801/creatu re.html I note the following: "The funnel-web's venom is highly toxic, and although the males are smaller than the females, their venom is five times as deadly. Strangely enough, it can kill a human or monkey, but has little or no effect on smaller creatures such as cats or frogs." Like I say, that makes no sense at all given an evolutionists perspective or any normal perspective on animal development. It makes a hell of a lot of sense, however, if the fricking thing was specifically designed to kill humans (or monkeys), possibly to guard some place and keep humans or monkeys out of it. Just a thought.
Granted evolution is BS and some sort of a design theory will ultimately end up being generally accepted: does anybody actually believe that an all-knowing, all-powerful, loving God created all of this earth's creatures? Including black flies and chiggers?? I assume I'm not the only person on Earth who has a hard time with that. The evidence as I see it points to a past age in which genetic engineering and re-engineering was being practiced by more than one or two parties and, occasionally, with bad intentions. There appears to be no better place on Earth to view some of this sort of evidence than Australia. In particular, some of the things you see there do not make sense logically given the usual theories about how animals operate. Why would a spider or an octopus the size of a quarter require the power to kill humans? I mean, a spider's never going to EAT a human... The funnel-web in particular eats insects. In fact, aside from explaining why such a creature would evolve the power to kill humans, the evolutionist has a problem at least as big in explaining why such a creature would even have the aggressive attitude it has towards much larger creatures. Granted the creature can kill humans, it will usually be killed itself in the process and has nothing to gain from it. It's a lose/lose situation, the opposite of symbiosis. You'd think evolution would have to favor those spiders which AVOIDED larger creatures which it could not rationally hope to eat or even live after attacking, and that after a few hundred generations, you'd never see that sort of behavior in them. Check out: http://www.discovery.com/conversations/creature/archive/creature990801/creatu re.html I note the following: "The funnel-web's venom is highly toxic, and although the males are smaller than the females, their venom is five times as deadly. Strangely enough, it can kill a human or monkey, but has little or no effect on smaller creatures such as cats or frogs." Like I say, that makes no sense at all given an evolutionists perspective or any normal perspective on animal development. It makes a hell of a lot of sense, however, if the fricking thing was specifically designed to kill humans (or monkeys), possibly to guard some place and keep humans or monkeys out of it. Just a thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.