Carin Nel

Don't worry, but thanks for caring. Not that you have ever cared if anyone insulted me, Biff!!!
I've E-mailed Randall and am waiting for his reply. I can't find any articles to show that he is not trust-worthy.
Could you refer me to them, please?
Regards,
Carn Nel

Carin Nel

Hi Sven

Sorry to bore you!

I found the discussions on these topics very interesting. Another argument in the evolution-creation controversy.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/

Here are some extracts:

“Our present knowledge supports the interpretation that most shared pseudogenes/retroposons are evidence for common descent and macroevolution. If in the future--for a particular Alu or LINE-1 or endogenous retrovirus sequence that is shared between humans and another species--evidence of function is discovered, then this particular sequence could indeed be reasonably interpreted by the creationist paradigm of "similar sequence designed for similar function"; and so this retroposon would have to be removed from the list of shared functionless sequences that provide evidence for evolution.
Why then are our chromosomes not stuffed with retroposon sequences at an even higher frequency than actually observed? A reasonable answer is that our ancestors were under selective pressure to suppress retroposition, since high frequencies of retroposon insertion would increase the rate of genetic damage caused by crippling insertions into genes.”

“Some pseudogenes may be "the result of degenerative changes in living organisms since the Fall." This interpretation seems plausible, and--if we ignore the "Fall" part--not very different from the evolutionary idea that pseudogenes arise by random genetic accidents. However, this interpretation completely ignores the fact that many pseudogenes are shared between apes and humans, located in the same positions and sharing the same genetic defects, apparently the result of the same genetic accident or "degenerative change" in a common ancestor.”

Now back to basic evolution- Maybe I’m stupic AND dumb, but
the theory of evolution as depicted through the evolutionary tree in my high school classroom only dealt with the macro-evolutionary chain between organic creatures. According to my “knowledge”, Evolutionary Theory appears to have seven distinct and interrelated phases, set by Science in the following order:
1.. Cosmic Evolution. (The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.);
2. Stellar Evolution. (The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements);
3. Chemical Evolution .(The development of all chemical elements from an original two);.
4. Planetary Evolution. (The development of planetary systems from swirling elements);.
5. Organic Evolution. (The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock));.
6. Macro-Evolution. (The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.);
7. Micro-Evolution. (The development of variations within the same kind of life.).

According to the science books and the television documentaries only the 7th phase - Micro-Evolution -- has been observed and documented. The first six phases of evolution are merely assumed. As scientists started understanding the nature of genetics, they were forced to update Darwin's original theory. They proposed that Natural Selection, in conjunction with genetic mutation, allowed for the development of all species from a common ancestor. Although true beneficial mutations have never been observed (scientists only observe harmful, "downward" mutations), this is today's general conjecture regarding evolutionary change. Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution only focuses on the mechanism for modification over time between kinds of organisms. Evolutionary theory still doesn't deal with the first organism that arose by chance on our so-called "primitive planet" - this is called "spontaneous generation."

Without outside input, “spontaneous generation” is really the only explanation for the first organisms on Earth.

That’s what bothers me – spontaneous generation from rock into life- spontaneously?! No way!!

(Thanks to Randall Niles): http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/my-worldview.htm

(I have a very interesting theory that will freak out many Christians as well!
It belongs on the Creation/Evolution thread. Maybe I'll start a thread there.
Maybe it will shed some light on many of these issues.)


Regards,
Carin Nel

Sven

If you find it interesting, why don't you take the chance to read up on it?

There is no (scientific) controversy. Only a made-up political one.

Yes. And what exactly was your point? Do you really like disproving yourself or did you simply fail to understand what you quoted?

Did your high school teacher use Kent Hovind's material as reference material by any chance? This appears to be taken straight from his pages and is a very strawmannish representation of evolution.

First thing to notice: When different scientific disciplines use the term "evolution", they mean entirely different things. It's simply completely meaningless to lump all those seven together.

Now on to specific points:
1. Nobody knowing modern cosmology would claim that space, time, matter and energy came from nothing. It's still an open question what was before the Big Bang, or if speaking about "before the Big Bang" is similar to "north of the North Pole" - in other words, meaningless.
2. "The first elements" were never chaotic, it's exactly the other way round: A problem in modern cosmology is to explain how the unordered universe (some galaxies or clusters of galaxies here, some there) developped from the highly ordered early universe. And I think that "stellar evolution" is not only used for the first stars, but for every star we observe today. You may not know it, but we observed stars being "born", stars in every stage of their "life", and stars "dieing" on a regular basis.
3. I suppose you mean hydrogen and helium with the "original two [elements]". But I've never heard this refered to as "Chemical Evolution"
4. Again: I've never heard anyone using the term "Planetary Evolution".
5. I don't know who uses the term "Organic Evolution" for "The development of organic life from inorganic matter". And it certainly was not from a rock. The correct term is "Abiogenesis". And please note that it's very difficult to define what's life and what's not life - so the line between 4 and 5 is very blurry.
6. Macro-Evolution is biology is not about "kinds" (a term never ever defined by creationists, BTW, although they love to use it in arguments), but about "changes above the species level." In other words: The evolution of a new species. Something which has been observed dozens if not hundreds of times.
7. Similarly, Micro-Evolution is defined as "changes at or below the species level". The population has changed, but all members of the population are still able to reproduce with each other.

To summarize: Either your teacher was entirely ignorant of science, or you misremember your school greatly.

Since your definition of "Macro-evolution" is entirely screwed, it's no wonder that you've found no evidence for it.
Apart from this, I have no idea which science books you read and television programs you watch. There are literally mountains of evidence for each one of the seven points. Again: If you would bother to look at the "Start here" thread in Evolution/Creation, this discussion would be unnecessary. Do you really like it when everyone sees how lazy you are?

1) About the meaning of "evolution": See above.
2) 100% wrong. If you were really interested in this, you would have taken the chane to educate yourself (see above) and would have seen that you are wrong.

:huh: So what? That's the nature of science!
Carin, you continue to embarrass yourself here. Why don't you take my advice and study a bit for yourself?

Compare this to the church: They needed 500 years to admit that Galileo (a scientist) was right.

Maybe that did indeed so - I doubt it. But even if they did, scientists showed that there's more about it, that there are many more mechanism in the theory of evolution.

More falsehoods. See above about embarrassing yourself.

Your entire post sounds like as if coming straight from Kent Hovind.

Again: Wrong. "kind" is not a term which biologists use.

Of course it does not! Chemistry also does not deal with how the elements were "cooked" up in super novae!
See, Carin, this is simple: Evolution is biology. The development of first life is chemistry or, at best, biochemistry. There is absolutely no reason why evolution should explain Abiogenesis - that's the job of chemists! And (bio)chemists have already found out a great deal about it.

No, it's not. See above about embarrassing yourself. Heck, even Wikipedia knows better than you: Abiogenesis

Earlier notions of abiogenesis, now more commonly known as spontaneous generation, held that complex, living organisms are generated by decaying organic substances, e.g. that mice spontaneously appear in stored grain or maggots spontaneously appear in meat. [snip] Pasteur had demonstrated that Spontaneous Generation was wrong [snip]
[Miller's and Urey's] experiments had different results from Pasteur's because they involved different conditions. Since that time there have been other experiments that continue to look into possible ways for life to have formed from non-living chemicals, e.g. the experiments conducted by Joan Oró in 1961. Some involve the formation of self-replicating molecules that make copies of themselves, but are not regarded as living (see definition of life).

Yes, it's soooooooo easy to burn down strawman, isn't it?

You may note that Miller and Urey did not use rocks at all in their experiments.

You know, when someone use crappy arguments like this, he has been proven quite clearly that he has not educated himself on the topic - as he claimed. So he's a liar. Biff was right.

Before you do so: Take the chance to educate yourself. Or leave it at this - and continue to embarrass yourself.

Carin Nel

Here is Randal's reply ( speedy Conzales?!):

<removed as a privacy violation>

Regards,
Carin Nel

Carin Nel

To Sven:
You are absolutely right - I'll stop right here. I'll stick to my field of knowledge which is the Scriptures, the Christian life and searching the Scriptures for the Truth.

Regards
Carin Nel

555

Then all rational peoples including scientists & intelligent peoples will be with satan.

Biff the unclean

Yeah, I looked up this con man’s website too. Very slick, very graphic and very ego centric. The dude sure loves to see his own face. And he hopes that God knocks me on my ass someday…isn’t that ever so Christian of him to wish that.

He can “prove” the existence of God? Fine, trot God’s butt out here and let’s have a look at him. See if he in his love and mercy can knock this old man down. This Randal guy’s a fake.

Carin Nel

Double post

Carin Nel

OK, Biff, you aked for it! I did not post Ralph's complete post to save you embarrasment, as you obviously don't like emotional stuff and find it "impossible" to show any emotion except "tough guy" stuff, macho man- so here is his whole post. By the way- your reaction to a total stranger who just happens not to share your "viewpoint" I find very weird and overboard and just proves his point.

<edit>

O yes, and on this forum statements like your's: "This Randal guy’s a fake" is unfalsifiable and not allowed. because it' a "feeling" you have about the man. Get it? You also have it!!!

Love you!:wave:

Regards
Carin Nel

Carin Nel

Shame, you've said it! You're insulting a lot of very intelligent people on this forum now, including yourself!

Regards
Carin