Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dr.GH · 02-24-2002, 04:18 PM

Troy Britain use writen some good material i=on the darwin was a racist issue.

<a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/Index.htm" target="_blank">http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/Index.htm</a>

Particularly here:

<a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm" target="_blank">Darwin on race and slavery</a>

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ]

{Edited to replace long URL with link - Pantera}

[ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

Jesterhole · 02-25-2002, 05:44 AM

Don't worry. We're handling her. She won't last much longer.
I worry about her crap in the "What is Evolution?" thread.>>>

Ya, her favorite past time is to run around to all the boards where there are throngs of gullible christians sitting around. She sounds smart...knows a few things about the debate to avoid...and then spits out all her creationist BS and her theory on the great evolutionist lie.

Anyone ever read her husband's work? Funny stuff...

-Drew

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jesterhole ]</p>

DougI · 02-25-2002, 06:15 AM

Yet another pathetic stupid argument from Helen why am I not surprised. Somebody should kick her in the balls.

Darwin's Finch · 02-25-2002, 06:29 AM

Who is her husband?

Jesterhole · 02-25-2002, 07:04 AM

Barry Setterfield. Another freakin' creationist...

<a href="http://www.setterfield.org/" target="_blank">http://www.setterfield.org/</a>

Here is everything about him being wrong...

<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/</a>

-Drew

Darwin's Finch · 02-25-2002, 07:33 AM

Thanks for the links, Drew. I didn't realize she was married to that Setterfield. That at least explains her cockeyed veneer of science-speak. I seem to have missed her short appearance here at II. Could anyone provide the link(s) to the appropriate thread(s)?

scigirl · 02-25-2002, 08:33 AM

Helen is not a biologist, and knows very little about biology. I found that out here, with her post:

<a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000131;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000131;p=2</a>

The fact that HIV remains identifiably HIV means all we are getting
is variation, not the sort of evolution which will change it into
something else. Again, there is a gulf. In addition, I believe the
variation we are seeing here is not in the RNA itself but in the protein
coat and a specific folding.

WTF? "it's not in the rna but in the protein?"

And she's teaching high school kids about science? OMG

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

froggie/scigirl

scigirl · 02-25-2002, 09:39 AM

Ok here's my latest. . .

Quote:

To Froggie: There is a rather vast gulf between variation and
gross morphological changes which is only bridged by the imagination of
evolutionists.

Imagination plus evidence. Remember�we thought of common descent first. Now we are trying to explain how it happened.

Quote:

11. The fact that HIV remains identifiably HIV means all we are getting
is variation, not the sort of evolution which will change it into
something else. Again, there is a gulf. In addition, I believe the
variation we are seeing here is not in the RNA itself but in the protein
coat and a specific folding.

You are aware that the folding, and the structure of a protein is dictated by its sequence, which is encoded by the RNA! That�s one strike against you. The strikes are me counting the evidence that you do not understand what the theory of evolution is, or what it is not.

Quote:

12. Speciation may be variation + natural selection. I have no problem
with that. But variation, with or without natural selection does not
produce new gross morphological features, which is the hallmark of the
type of evolution which I and other creationists dispute. � Variation over millions of years is still only variation.

Assertion made by YECS all the time. Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

Evolution has a plethora of circumstantial data. It looks like common descent occurred�if you look at morphology, fossil data, and sequence data. So now we are trying to figure out how.

Because the evidence overwhelmingly points to evolution, and NOT to YEC, than I believe the burden of proof is on you. Prove that there is a barrier to macroevolution.

Quote:

The term itself implies that the mean is there and
there are simply some differences in its expression. Legs come in long,
short, fat, skinny, hairy, �naked�, healthy, crippled, etc. etc. But
they are still recognized as legs. Wings come in big, small, fast,
slow, etc. etc., but are still recognized as wings. Varieties of each.
But to change from a leg to a wing, or vice versa, requires a lot more
than simple variation!

That�s strike 2. Helen, we have discussed this before. How many genetic sequence differences does it take to make a muscle verses a nerve cell? The answer � zero. All our cells have the exact same DNA (well except for non-nucleated cells, sperm and egg cells, and T and B cells). If you start making changes to the promotor sequences in body plan DNA, you can achieve radical differences rather quickly. The difference between a leg and a wing is NOT that different. Read <a href="http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm." target="_blank">http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mchox.htm.</a> Here�s a quote:

Quote:

From the UCSD news article:
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals. In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects. The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism creationists had long leveled against evolution�the absence of a genetic mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body designs.

The creationists� argument rests in part on the fact that animals have two sets of chromosomes and that in order to get big changes, you�d need to mutate the same genes in both sets of chromosomes,� explains McGinnis. �It�s incredibly unlikely that you would get mutations in the same gene in two chromosomes in a single organism. But in our particular case, the kind of mutation that�s in this gene is a so-called dominant mutation, so you only need to mutate one of the chromosomes to get a big change in body plan.

Quote:

14. I think you are mistaking observations with judgment calls,
Froggie. Even supposing evolution to be true, the fact that we may be
violent because apes are violent would simply be an observation. The
morality is different and cannot be explained so simply. WHY would we
object to our own violence on purely moral terms? This is the crux of
the morality issue.

And because your God said �Be good� is a satisfactory answer for you? Why did He make violent animals if He hates violence? That explanation does not do it for me. I prefer the Buddhist sentiment--be good because you should be good (not because some invisible man is floating in the sky watching you). Tenets like the golden rule work well, without needing a supernatural origin.

Quote:

15. The fact that we can analyze ourselves IS important � I agree with
you there, froggie. But why is it important? If it were important for
physical survival then surely other �developed� species would also have
this. But they don�t. Only us. The least �well-developed� in so many
ways, such as eyesight, hearing, musculature, instincts, etc. Why us?
Chimps recognize themselves in a mirror, fine. They do not analyze
their own conduct. The two are quite different. By the way, birds such
as parrots can also recognize themselves in mirrors�

With this line of reasoning I could elevate any animal as the �special one.� Perhaps sharks are having this same conversation right now. �Clearly, we are God�s chosen creatures, because we are the only ones who can sense electricity. It must have had some purpose, some grand and glorified meaning.

Quote:

16. OK, forget WHY we might have social ills. Why do we CALL them that?

Because calling them �social stomach viruses� sounds silly.

Quote:

17. You said, �evolutionary theory makes no moral statements.� Yes it
does. It states that there is no reason for absolute morality and that
in itself is a moral statement promoting relative morality, which is
only a cute name for opinions � in which case there is no morality at
all for it is then the strongest which can impose their ideas on any
they dominate: otherwise known as �might makes right.�

Helen, that is ridiculous, and I think we are on strike 3. Evolution does not say absolute morality does not exist. It simply proves that literal reading of an ancient text as a scientific document is not a good idea.

Evolution may provide us an explanation for our behavior. This is no different than a physiologist giving us an explanation as to why type I diabetes destroys kidneys. Is a doctor making a moral statement when she says, �Your kidney is malfunctioning because you have diabetes?� No.

And like I recently told Cpatriot � I am not a moral relativist. I am claiming that Christians do not have absolute morality, even thought they think they do. Furthermore, if there is an absolute morality, it will be based on reason, logic, and human compassion. It will not be based on a book written by fallible men thousands of years ago. If you want to get into a philosophical debate, start one elsewhere. This forum is for evolution and science.

Quote:

18. You then stated, � If a population has evolved, it has done one
thing and one thing only: improved its reproductive success by adapting
to its environment.� It seems that we humans have not done that at
all! As a matter of fact we have destroyed a good part of our
environment by trying to make it adapt to not just us, but to our
aspirations and goals for ourselves. Where did the concept of
aspirations and goals come from evolutionarily, by the way?

I don�t know. I never claimed that evolution has all the answers. Evolution cannot explain why every little thing happened (or maybe it can, but it would be as hard as using quantum theory to predict a dice roll at Vegas � too many variables!)

You seem to think that just because the theory of evolution hasn�t explained your problems, than it is worthless. Well, why don�t you let scientists study the darn theory, or teach kids what it is instead of making false statements that �evolution is racist� or �evolution says we can have no morals�? Then maybe evolutionary theory can start helping us for a change.

Quote:

19. I did not say that reproductive success was what it was all about.
You did.

No evolution did. That�s four strikes Helen. What is evolution? Change over time, due to differential reproductive success. If an �improvement� is made in an individual and does not get passed on, than that population did not evolve.

Quote:

Therefore, by YOUR standards I am more fit than you. Forget
the fact that I was kicked by a horse and could only produce one live
child. Forget the fact that I have to take enough medications for
chemical factory in the evening. Forget the fact that I have an
artificial knee, no spleen, half a pancreas, no appendix, no internal
female organs, and other problems requiring surgeries in the next year.
By your definition I am more fit. I happen to disagree with you,
actually. I think you are much more fit than I am!

Helen, honestly, it was meant to be a joke. Since I assumed in my last post that you at least understood the underlying theory behind evolution, you would get the joke. Please do not be offended � I did not know any of those details until just now. And I am of course sad to hear those things.

What I meant was: I knew you had kids. And according to the theory of E, you ARE more fit than me, because you produced offspring. Realize this is a science definition � NOT A MORAL STATEMENT. Remember � all species that have made it up to today are all equally fit (as opposed to the species who went extinct). They have all adapted well enough to the environment to survive. That is all evolution says. It is you who keeps putting words and morals and nonsense into evolution�s �mouth�

Quote:

20. You made a good point about needing to beware of the variations you
get in the labs due to mutations. However, let me sing my song again:
the viruses remain viruses, the bacteria remain bacteria, and the lab
mice remain mice.

This song is getting almost as annoying as a Britney Spears song played over and over. Too bad it�s not a Beatles song or something.

Helen, that is strike 5. Remember the time factor? Yeah, that. If we saw a mouse change into a cow in our lifetimes that would be proof AGAINST evolution. Please read talkorigins or something - I�m a lowly grad student and it is clear to me that your background in biology is shaky. Hey I think that�s ok � just remedy the situation ok?

Also, the breeds of dogs that cannot breed with each other � I�m sorry, but a chiwahwah and a St Bernard are not �still just dogs� because the dictionary says so. Biology laws say � they are new species. So yes we have seen macroevolution in our lifetimes (our being modern humans).

Quote:

What you are worrying about, then is not evolution,
but the effects of simple variations on your work. If you were actually
getting morphological evolution in your lab, you would be trumpeting it
to the world and be in line, I am sure, for a Nobel Prize!

Well that would be pretty interesting, because my lab does not study morphological evolution, we try to cure inflammatory diseases. The arthritis foundation would be pretty ticked off.

And no, I would not win the Nobel Prize for proving what scientists have known for a fact for over 100 years.

But that article I linked to above though � which is starting to show how morphological evolution occurred (not that it did occur, that has already been proven), looks like Nobel work to me.

Quote:

22. I wish, oh how I wish, you were right when you say that �trying to
refute a theory is exactly how science works.� Here we are trying to
refute the theory of evolution itself and �.sigh�. Or my husband�s
work with the speed of light, the redshift, etc.

Yes, that should be telling you something. If you spend a lifetime trying to prove a theory wrong, and you are unsuccessful. . . I�ll let you make the obvious common sense observation.

Quote:

23. And, finally, you asked me how I would feel about all the different
creation stories being taught in a science classroom. That is a straw
man, froggie. I have never even asked for ANY creation �story� to be
taught in ANY science classroom.

Helen, if they were, you would be happy. Admit it. I freely admit that I want YEC as far away from a science classroom as it can get. Actually, I take that back. Put YEC in a science classroom, prove it wrong in about 5 minutes, than get out the real science books.

Quote:

I feel that way about the evolution stories, too,
depending as they do on a combination of imagination and absolute faith
in the ability of naturalistic processes in a material world to
accomplish all that we see in life.

Well since you have repeatedly demonstrated that your ideas about evolution are imagination (i.e. false), I can see why you have those views. I challenge you to actually read talk origins or some other site and learn what evolution is, and more importantly, what it is not. Then maybe you won�t worry so much.

froggie

Kevin Dorner · 02-25-2002, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl:
<strong>Also, the breeds of dogs that cannot breed with each other – I’m sorry, but a chiwahwah and a St Bernard are not “still just dogs” because the dictionary says so. Biology laws say – they are new species. So yes we have seen macroevolution in our lifetimes (our being modern humans). </strong>

Do you have a (reputable) link or citation for that? It's something I would be interested in having for future reference as it would be a good example of speciation.

Jesterhole · 02-25-2002, 11:28 AM

22. I wish, oh how I wish, you were right when you say that “trying to
refute a theory is exactly how science works.” Here we are trying to
refute the theory of evolution itself and ….sigh…. Or my husband’s
work with the speed of light, the redshift, etc.>>>

Yes, that should be telling you something. If you spend a lifetime trying to prove a theory wrong, and you are unsuccessful. . . I’ll let you make the obvious common sense observation.

*************

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

I (once again) am amazed with you scigirl.

-Drew

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-24-2002, 04:18 PM	#11
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Troy Britain use writen some good material i=on the darwin was a racist issue. <a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/Index.htm" target="_blank">http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/Index.htm</a> Particularly here: <a href="http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/troybritain/articles/darwin_on_race.htm" target="_blank">Darwin on race and slavery</a> [ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ] [ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Dr.GH ] {Edited to replace long URL with link - Pantera} [ February 24, 2002: Message edited by: Pantera ]</p>

02-25-2002, 05:44 AM	#12
Jesterhole Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 22	Don't worry. We're handling her. She won't last much longer. I worry about her crap in the "What is Evolution?" thread.>>> Ya, her favorite past time is to run around to all the boards where there are throngs of gullible christians sitting around. She sounds smart...knows a few things about the debate to avoid...and then spits out all her creationist BS and her theory on the great evolutionist lie. Anyone ever read her husband's work? Funny stuff... -Drew [ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Jesterhole ]</p>

02-25-2002, 06:15 AM	#13
DougI Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 932	Yet another pathetic stupid argument from Helen why am I not surprised. Somebody should kick her in the balls.

02-25-2002, 06:29 AM	#14
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Who is her husband?

02-25-2002, 07:04 AM	#15
Jesterhole Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 22	Barry Setterfield. Another freakin' creationist... <a href="http://www.setterfield.org/" target="_blank">http://www.setterfield.org/</a> Here is everything about him being wrong... <a href="http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/" target="_blank">http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/</a> -Drew

02-25-2002, 07:33 AM	#16
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Thanks for the links, Drew. I didn't realize she was married to that Setterfield. That at least explains her cockeyed veneer of science-speak. I seem to have missed her short appearance here at II. Could anyone provide the link(s) to the appropriate thread(s)?

02-25-2002, 08:33 AM	#17
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Helen is not a biologist, and knows very little about biology. I found that out here, with her post: <a href="http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000131;p=2" target="_blank">http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=36;t=000131;p=2</a> The fact that HIV remains identifiably HIV means all we are getting is variation, not the sort of evolution which will change it into something else. Again, there is a gulf. In addition, I believe the variation we are seeing here is not in the RNA itself but in the protein coat and a specific folding. WTF? "it's not in the rna but in the protein?" And she's teaching high school kids about science? OMG <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> froggie/scigirl

02-25-2002, 11:28 AM	#20
Jesterhole Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 22	22. I wish, oh how I wish, you were right when you say that “trying to refute a theory is exactly how science works.” Here we are trying to refute the theory of evolution itself and ….sigh…. Or my husband’s work with the speed of light, the redshift, etc.>>> Yes, that should be telling you something. If you spend a lifetime trying to prove a theory wrong, and you are unsuccessful. . . I’ll let you make the obvious common sense observation. ************* HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> I (once again) am amazed with you scigirl. -Drew

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.