On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Quite right, because the question is unanswerable.

If you can't identify any valid theory of evolution then
what exactly is it that your are claiming is wrong?

Setting up a fake theory and then blaming the scientific
community for it is not particularly useful.

- in fact you
haven't identified what any version of evolution is and you haven't
demonstrated that _your_ version of "evolution" even exists in the
scientific community.

I disagree.

You're contradicting yourself.

But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human
beings.

Why should they be? That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community. There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.

But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect
of biology.

Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and
feed underwater.

For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be
evolution.

Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that? As long as you are
fighting against your fantasies, you'll have problems.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of human
beings.

Why should they be?

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community.

Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?


If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...


If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

So, if it's not gradual, it's sudden, right?

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed. The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.


But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found? Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one aspect
of biology.

One would expect gross morphological changes to be more than "skin deep."


Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to swim and
feed underwater.

But they DO swim and feed underwater, and I doubt that their brains are
grossly morphologically different from land iguanas. Can you demonstrate
that marine iguanas are an evolutionary change rather than a simple
behavioral adaptation based on the particular needs associated with the
Galapagos ecosystem?



For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to be
evolution.

Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.


Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Any theory of evolution.


Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Scott Weiser wrote:
A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:


But they are all still sharks. They are not the aquatic version of
human
beings.

Why should they be?

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

That's _your_ fantasy about evolution, not any
theory that exists in the scientific community.

Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

There is _nothing_
in the scientific realm that insists on a monotonic, continuous
variation in species evolution.

And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual
variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?


If nothing else, the average height of humans has increased
substantially in recorded history.

There you go inventing your own version of morphology. Stick with
the facts - height variation occurs _within_ morphological
similarity.

And then there's the change to upright gait...


If DNA shifts cause gradual morphological changes

And if it doesn't cause gradual changes? You are the one
that insists on change being gradual, not the scientific
community.

So, if it's not gradual, it's sudden, right?

Some
paleontologists posit that Neanderthal and Sapien may have
co-existed, but
the overlap is speculative at this point.

Nothing speculative at all. They are known to have co-existed.
The
timeframes of overlap are in tens of thousands of years. Tools
from
both species are found in the same sites in the same timeframe.


But one would expect to find some evidence of these unfavorable
changes.

If the change is in soft tissue, how is that to be found?
Morphology
isn't evolution and it isn't biology nor genetics. It is one
aspect
of biology.

One would expect gross morphological changes to be more than "skin
deep."


Which constitutes ADAPTATION, not evolution.

Your assumption. You don't know whether the change required an
evolutionary
change in, say, brain function, that would allow for an iguana to
swim and
feed underwater.

But they DO swim and feed underwater, and I doubt that their brains
are
grossly morphologically different from land iguanas. Can you
demonstrate
that marine iguanas are an evolutionary change rather than a simple
behavioral adaptation based on the particular needs associated with
the
Galapagos ecosystem?



For marine
iguanas, the development of gills would be an entirely useful
evolution that
would produce a favorable result. In the case of sharks, the
development of
a sophisticated intellect and communications capability that
permits sharks
to communicate sophisticated concepts to one another (along the
lines of

YOur fantasies. The scientific community does not dictate what
constitutes
a minimal requirement for the real world in order to consider it to
be
evolution.

Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.


Even if the theory of evolution is true,

Which theory of evolution? You claimed you can't identify it.

Any theory of evolution.


Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because
one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

On 16-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

There is a large
body of scholars who believe that the physical properties of the
universe,
combined with statistical probability, provide substantial
evidence of
intelligent design of the Universe.

It does not provide evidence of intelligent design. It certainly
does not
prove the existence of God.

A Bayesian would look at the probabilistic "evidence" and suggest
that
since the highly improbable has happened, their estimates are
likely
wrong. Just because a bunch of fundies pull some numbers out of
their
asses and make claims, doesn't prove anything.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

=A9 2005 Scott Weiser

Keep them on their heels Scott! It has been educational. TnT

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

DNA changes are produced by many things, not just gamma rays. In fact,
every fertilized egg is an example of recombination of genetic material
that is unique.

I've already pointed out that not all changes provide for forms that
are better suited. Even if one does, there is no guarantee that
that one survives. It's a tough world out there.

Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

A theory is a hypothesis backed by an abundance of fact. Get over it.

And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?

It could be episodic change. No gods required. Get over it.

And then there's the change to upright gait...

You still insist on proving that you haven't got a clue what
you're talking about. Homo Sapiens has always walked upright.

Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.

Bull****. The scientific community bases their science on
observation. The religious nut cases base their fantasies
on insisting on the existanc of God and then trying to force
fit the world to match their fantasies.

Any theory of evolution.

The only "theory" that you are using to judge the scientific
community is one of your own invention. Judge them on a
theory that actually exists.

Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

Where in that post did I state that God does not exist? I said that
it doesn't _prove_ that God exists. Big difference, twit. Learn
to read.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Because even random DNA modification caused by gamma rays should have
produced some alternative forms better suited to survival at sea.

DNA changes are produced by many things, not just gamma rays.

Indeed. Thanks for strengthening my argument.

In fact,
every fertilized egg is an example of recombination of genetic material
that is unique.

I've already pointed out that not all changes provide for forms that
are better suited. Even if one does, there is no guarantee that
that one survives. It's a tough world out there.

I agree. But you still have not explained why it is that primates evolved
into humans in less than 2 million years while sharks have not evolved into
anything else in more than 400 million years. Could it be that humans were
intended to evolve while sharks weren't?


Which is why evolution is a "theory," not a scientific fact.

A theory is a hypothesis backed by an abundance of fact. Get over it.

Thanks for agreeing with me.


And so there must therefore be some force other than gradual variation which
drives evolution. What is it, pray tell?

It could be episodic change. No gods required. Get over it.

So, you agree that it could be an episodic change. Now please explain what
causes this episodic change? What is the trigger? And how episodic is it?
Does it occur instantly, from one generation, or indeed individual organism
to the next, or is there some time/generational span in which the change
takes place more slowly? What is the mechanism if this change? Is is a
"natural phenomenon" or is there some unexplained trigger that causes one
creature to become another episodically?

If an individual member of a species episodically becomes another species,
how does that new species survive, since virtually all distinct species are
not interfertile, or if they are, the result is a sterile derivative like
the mule? How then can this "new" species procreate and thus survive? For
this to be possible, massive numbers of the "new" species would have to be
created, in both sexes, at exactly the same time, in order for there to be a
sufficient number of interfertile pairs available to perpetuate the new
species. How, exactly, would a mass change from one species to another
spontaneously occur under any theory of evolution? That would require an
identical genetic shift in a massive population of organisms simultaneously,
which is about as statistically impossible as it gets under any sort of
random mutation/evolution model. Care to explain how this could occur?

And is it not possible that "God" instigated these episodic changes by
directly or indirectly manipulating the physical world? Could there be an
intelligence behind the genetic shift somehow manipulating either the
environment or the DNA directly to cause that change? Can you prove that no
such external manipulation is or has taken place?


And then there's the change to upright gait...

You still insist on proving that you haven't got a clue what
you're talking about. Homo Sapiens has always walked upright.

Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't.
If your theory of evolution is correct, then at some point primate species
that preceded Homo Sapiens who did not use an upright gait changed in some
manner and began walking upright. So, when, exactly, did these primates
"become" Homo Sapiens? If your evolutionary theory is correct, there is no
such thing as "Homo Sapiens" because factually speaking the organism that
exists today is merely an incremental change from whatever creature it
evolved from. Go back far enough and we're all therefore really pond scum.
Introducing an artificial demarcation point of where our primate ancestors
"became" human seems to be shallow thinking if evolution is the true and
only process involved. This is particularly true when you cannot identify,
in the fossil record or otherwise, how Homo Sapien is genetically related to
primate (and earlier) forms. Can you show a genetic evolution from pond scum
to primate to human that would support your theory of evolution?


Then the "scientific community" are evading the issue.

Bull****. The scientific community bases their science on
observation.

Ah, yes, "observation." You mean like the scientific observation that the
world is flat? How about the scientific observation that "atoms" are the
smallest form of matter? Or the scientific observation that the sun revolves
around the earth?

Scientific observation, of course, relies for its accuracy on the ability of
the observer to both detect and understand what is being observed. Nobody
knew, for example, until quite recently that a substance called
"Bose-Einstein Condensate" actually existed or could be created. Advances in
our understanding of physical science permitted us to observe and understand
that phenomenon. However, Einstein had "faith" that such a substance could
exist, based on his mathematical hypotheses about the physical universe.

Cannot "God" be considered to be an hypothesis of intelligent design based
on mathematical probabilities, intellectual reasoning and unexplained
physical properties of the universe? Does the fact that scientists cannot
yet detect, observe, quantify and explain "God" prove somehow that God does
not and cannot exist?

The religious nut cases base their fantasies
on insisting on the existanc of God and then trying to force
fit the world to match their fantasies.

Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and
even Archimedes were deluded fools.

The fact that our scientists are not yet smart enough to either observe or
understand the existence of "Acts of God" does not disprove the hypothesis
(or theory) that God exists and is (or has) manipulating the physical
parameters of the Universe.

Faith is indeed a state of belief in God in the absence of provable
scientific evidence of God, but Newton had faith that gravity existed, and
Galileo had faith that the earth revolved around the sun, and Archimedes had
faith that the inclined plane could be wrapped around a cylinder at one
time, even though they did not understand the physical factors involved.

We *still* do not clearly understand gravity, among other things we don't
yet understand.

Having a belief in God (an intelligence of design) is in no way
unscientific, it is merely the first step into a scientific inquiry into
what God is and how one might identify, observe and measure God. That many
people are not scientists and choose to believe in God even though they
cannot quantify or observe God directly, does not impeach their argument
that God exists, which is founded on more than simple belief or faith. As I
said at the beginning, there are things about our physical universe that
cannot yet be explained by science and are not understood by our scientists.
Attributing those phenomena to God is no less valid of a hypothesis than is
attributing gravity to some undetectable, theoretical "force."

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven, but because you yourself are incapable of
accepting the idea that there is an intelligence so advanced and so vast
that it has the power to manipulate the fundamental makeup of the physical
universe. That's little more than egocentrism and anthropocentrism, not
rigorous scientific inquiry. A true scientist would not simply discard a
hypothesis of the existence of God as reflected in the statistical
(im)probabilities of the makeup of the physical universe, he would
investigate and try to either prove or disprove the hypothesis conclusively
while keeping an open mind about things he does not yet understand.

Thus, evolution, even if true, does not disprove the existence of
God. Rejecting the possibility of God's existence merely because one
believes in the theory of evolution is shallow thinking indeed.

And who, in this discussion, has suggested that?

Nice backpedal. You did. To wit:

Where in that post did I state that God does not exist?

Do you believe God exists? And your anti-God agenda is pretty clearly
enunciated when you call those who believe in God "religious nut cases"
engaging in "fantasies." I say your words belie your temporization.

Do you or do you not believe in God? If so, why?

I said that
it doesn't _prove_ that God exists.

What "it" are you referring to?

Big difference, twit. Learn
to read.

Clearly you are threatened by my arguments. Do you have some bone to pick
with God that makes you so angry when God's existence is debated?
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 25-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Could it be that humans were
intended to evolve while sharks weren't?

There is no evidence of intention.

So, you agree that it could be an episodic change.

I agree with you? You keep making up things and hope you get
something right. You _still_ haven't posted any reference to
a scientific theory of evolution that resembles the nonsense
you are spewing.

Indeed. But what about Homo Sapien's precursor primate species that didn't.

Changing the discussion from morphology to something else?
Trying to avoid the fact that you don't know what you're talking about?

Ah, yes, "observation." You mean like the scientific observation that the
world is flat? How about the scientific observation that "atoms" are the
smallest form of matter? Or the scientific observation that the sun revolves
around the earth?

So, you don't understand the scientific method at all. Those bits of
information have all been superceded. And for the record, the scientific
community never held much for a flat earth - that was the religious
nutcase view. Any natural philosopher would have known about Eratosthenes'
measurements to deduce the circumference of the earth. Ditto Aristarchus
and his observations of the earth going around the sun.

Is ignorance one of your specialties?

Some time ago, your "scientists" believed wholesale that Galileo, Newton and
even Archimedes were deluded fools.

Proof?

Galileo was a widely respected natural philosopher, even among the members
of the Catholic Church. That's why he was treated so well during his
inquisition. Newton was the Lucasian chair of Mathematics and was so
well respected by his peers that he was believed to be correct even when
he was not. Archimedes was also a well respected philosopher - the cartoon
version of him as a crazy man running around in a towel yelling "Eureka"
has nothing to do with historical reality.

You have nothing to do with historical or present reality either.

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this? Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist. The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

Clearly you are threatened by my arguments.

Clearly you are delusional.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:


You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this?

What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand?

Provide a single quote where
I have said that God does not exist.

Nor have you responded to a specific question about whether you believe God
does exist, and are thus evading the question.

The fact that you can't deal
with any discussion without lying and misrepresenting the truth
proves that you are an idiot.

In my experience, college level scholars don't generally engage in
name-calling and ad hominem attack merely because they dispute the veracity
of their opponent's claims. They instead argue the facts and present
evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while
recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual
inquiry.

That being the case, I judge, once again, that you are a tenth-grade
equivalent Netwit of fractional wit and less interest.

Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate
sans invective, I believe I'll stop wasting my time with you.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 26-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

You implicitly reject the existence of God not because God has been
scientifically disproven

Why do you continue to lie about this?

What part of "implicitly" do you fail to understand?

I have _explicity_ stated otherwise, idiot.

Nor have you responded to a specific question

You still have not provided _any_ proof for _any_ specious
claim on which you have been challenged.

They instead argue the facts and present
evidence and argumentation tending to support their thesis, while
recognizing that conflict in theories is the essence of intellectual
inquiry.

I have argued the facts, idiot and still haven't seen you produce
a single fact to support your ridiculous claims.

Given that you are clearly uninterested in a reasoned philosophical debate

You haven't even begun to engage in reasoned debate. You have lied,
misrepresented what is said, made unsupportable claims and refused
to offer any facts in your defense. You have no claim to any
high road. YOu are a fool that wastes everyone elses' time. NOw
you are abandoning the discussion because you have proved nothing
but that you are an idiot.

Mike