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