Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)

The Lubbock Avalanche Journal ^ | 10/6/02 | Sebastian Kitchen

[balrog666]

555

Don't take my number, weirdo!

[VadeRetro]

I sometimes wonder how a person whose model of evolution is microscopically different from theistic evolutionist Junior's can address the evidence supporting your almost-identical beliefs so differently. It's almost as if you're either lying about what you believe or what you think about the evidence that would support your belief.

The creationists on this board don't seem to question their good fortune, so I'll turn the problem around. Let's suppose there was a supposed YEC who bought the creation doctrine line and sinker, except he was heretical on some minor detail that didn't change the expected results noticeably. Let's say he thought God delegated some creation to the angels and that's why some things were less than perfect.

The problem starts when any of the usual evidence for creation gets introduced. Someone mentions changes in the speed of light as a possible means to a young universe. Mr. Oddball joins the Es in attacking CDK and slaps high-fives with them after every volley. The behavior is repeated for every C mantra right down the list.

I suspect some BS detectors would light up that aren't lit now.

If you're going to protest that you don't want to talk about this then stop talking to me, because all I can think about is how you drip drip drip cynical dishonesty.

[f.Christian]

There is hope... help---love!

#104!

[talk2farley]

Oh come on, this is absurd. Whether or not a professor writes you a letter of reccomendation or not is a personal choice, based on his opinions of what makes a sound student.

If you and he differ on his reccomendations policies, dont ask him for a letter!! Its pretty self evident.

And for all of you who doubt evolution, explain to me what the hell leg bones are doing in snakes? They sure hell havent walked much in the past few millennia. Or tail bones in humans? Idunno about you, but I dont have a tail (anymore).

[balrog666]

So, you have a name over there or are you just a lurker?

Do you post in complete sentences there?

Do you hide your real identity as a complete whacko here when you're over there?

[f.Christian]

I wanted to register...ping rabbi laz---JRjr!

Mojo waning---banned!

[jennyp]

Frog DNA being closer to human than is chimp DNA.
Just was a long article from a non religious source that was discussing the findings. Wish I had it for you.

IIRC this claim came up in an FR thread many moons ago. I think it was a misstatement of a true finding, but I can't find any reference to it. It was either that one specific frog protein (or its gene) was more similar to the analogous chimp protein than to the human one, or the chimps version was closer to a frog's than to a human's, or something like that. The problem is, since mutations are random, there will always be a few outliers that don't conform to the true relationship tree (and which creationist then jump on loudly). You have to compare a range of genes or proteins to get the true picture. (See this comparison of mouse vs. human genes for instance.)

Cancer caused by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which by the way refutes evolution.
Cancer is a defect in the dna, it is a disorder, its form is disorder and therefor is a great parallel with a bit of irony I figured.
Just think, cancer is a form of mutation from normal, all it ever makes is tumors, never makes a FORM, but a lack of form.

It can make a pretty impressive looking tumor! :-) Seriously, in information theory "disorder" has a specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with what the "message" is representing in some external context.

The comment on the second law of thermodynamics is that things go from order to disorder. How then is the law of evolution causing order from disorder? Seriously, an ant is an accident?

The 2LoT implies that in order to get from disorder to order, you'll have to input energy somewhere in order to move the molecules around. That's all the 2LoT has to say about life or evolution: All living things must eat. (Speaking of which, I'll respond to the rest of your post after dinner...)

[gore3000]

I'm generally not aware of students' views on evolution; the subject comes up only infrequently in my teaching. But if I were aware an otherwise talented student had creationist views, I think I'd be obliged to mention it in the letter, and let the admissions committee make up its own mind.

Actually religion should be a requirement for practicing medicine. It is a well known scientific fact that faith heals and helps keep people alive. An atheist cannot heal the sick. As usual, the materialists have things backwards - and if you were in medicine you would not be saying that belief in God prevents one from practicing medicine.

[VadeRetro]

So what'd he get banned for?

I missed it. Whatever it was, he's no loss. If I were a creo, I'd feel about him the way as a conservative I feel about TLBSHOW. Then again, if I were a creo I'd either be irrational or an oxymoron.

[Ready2go]

talk2farley wrote: And for all of you who doubt evolution, explain to me what the hell leg bones are doing in snakes? They sure hell havent walked much in the past few millennia.


Through biological examination, John Crompton, an evolutionist and snake authority who authored the book "Snake Lore," discovered that at one time the snake that crawls upon its belly once had legs. As a matter of fact, at this present time the snake has not completely gotten rid of its legs. Tiny vestigals remain of what were once hind legs and are found inside the bodies of many snakes.

Crompton's record is supported by Klaus Griehl's book titled, "Snakes." Griehl points out that "primitive" snakes, such as boas and pythons, still show vestigial pelvic bones and anal spurs that represent the remnants of hind legs.

From the October 11, 1997, international edition of the Jerusalem Post, is the following excerpt:

A midrash about Adam and Eve now has scientific support: Hebrew University researchers have found evidence that prehistoric snakes had tiny legs.

According to Jewish tradition, the snake who tempted Eve to disobey God was punished by being forced to crawl on his belly forever.

The researchers also concluded from a close re-examination of snake fossils that they originated in the sea, rather than underground.

A team from the Silberman Institute of Life Sciences, headed by Prof. Eitan Tchernov, found that the fossils had two small but anatomically complete hind legs. Tchernov will present his findings this month at the international conference of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology in Chicago.

A wire service report printed in the Beaver County Times March 17, 2000 reads:
A team of researchers has reached into a dusty drawer and pulled out a snake with legs.

The discovery could upset at least some theories about the evolution of snakes.

"The fossil had been sitting in the museum drawer at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem since the death of researcher Georg Haas in the early 1980s," said Oliver Rieppel of the Field Museum in Chicago.

Another wire service reads as follows:
In their recent analysis of two 90 million-year-old lizard fossils from Israel, Michael W. Caldwell of Chicago's Field Museum and Michael S. Y. Lee of the University of Sydney in Australia concluded that the bones belonged to an ancestral snake. The fossils have several features in common with modern snakes, especially their long, slender bodies and distinctive skulls.

But the fossils also have obvious legs and lived in the sea. That doesn't jibe with the traditional view of ancestral asps, which are thought of as legless burrowing reptiles.

So in the April 17 issue of the Journal Nature, Caldwell and Lee advance the bold suggestion that snakes are most closely related to the mosasaurs, giant swimming reptiles that lived at the time of dinosaurs.

GOD SAID the serpent was cursed and it would crawl upon its belly.

Of the serpent specifically, God says in Genesis Chapter 3, Verses 14-15:
14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

[VadeRetro]

Nice spin. Now, what about the whale's hind legs? They get a lot bigger in the fossil record too.

[William McKinley]

A Strong Kick To The Finish! (Leave The Left Behind)
	Finish Strong. Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Condorman]

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

And now, as Mr. Harvey used to say, the rest of the story:

It would be unfair to suggest that Darwin condemned these merciful acts; that was not the intention of the quote presented above. He was simply providing evidence for the theory that humans have evolved a more sophisticated moral sensibility than other animals. In the passage following the quote above he states that eliminating acts of human sympathy would result in the "deterioration in the noblest part of our nature." Even though some intelligence theorists advocating the hereditarian position have used Darwinian ideas to support eugenicist goals like forced sterilization, it is very likely that Darwin himself would have objected to these practices:

…if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind…(Darwin, 1871, 1896, p. 134)

[balrog666]

Mojo waning---banned!

That's good for the TOS just like medved being banned has improved the atmosphere here. Unfortunately, unlike FreeRepublic, they seem to have a lot to learn about banning unruly jerks but they haven't gone overboard either. I suspect that a middle ground will evolve(hah!) for internet forums that tradeoff moderation versus freedom of speech in various degree. I hope most of us will be around to see it happen.

[Doc On The Bay]

"GOD" has not yet allowed us to see (&/or understand) "The Data" which definitively "shows that 'Mind' is Distinct from The Biochemistry of The Brain." Most of us Still accept this "Premise" as an "Article of Faith". & So we Continue--Believing that we "Live" beyond our physical End ! How Else can a Sentient Creature Endure? Doc

[gore3000]

Funny, I thought "loyalty oaths" were strictly a no-no in academic circles after the McCarthy/Red Scare era. I guess they are now needed to make sure everyone TOTALLY kneels in The Church of Darwin.

So very true. These people are not scientists, they are tyrannical ideologues. If they really had the facts, they would not be using such despicable tactics to force their views on others.

[f.Christian]

Self extinction is the main evo option---choice!

[AndrewC]

I sometimes wonder how a person whose model of evolution is microscopically different from theistic evolutionist Junior's can address the evidence supporting your almost-identical beliefs so differently

As much as your interest in psychoanalysis is important to you, my particular views are of no consequence to the errors which I point out. Your attempts to make me the center of attention are known as Ad Hominem. The points stand or fall on their own merits. They have been falling, at least the ones I choose to address. If you don't wish for me to comment on a particular thing you post, then don't post it.

If you can discern that my model of evolution is microscopically different from someone else's then there is no need to ask anything of me.

Finally, don't try to drag me into an argument in which I do not wish to engage. The only ones that I recall doing that are you and jennyp.