dk

dk: Mendelians and the Darwinians (touted mutation) were adversaries into the 1920s. Here’s a perspective on Mendel, de Vries, Correns, and Tschermak Horticulture: the font for the baptism of genetics. Clearly revisionist history has been a factor. Apparently de Vries read Mendel’s work, copied it, then rediscovering it independently . Here’s a quote another quote, “Tschermak, like many nineteenth-century biologists, including Charles Darwin, thought of these elements as possessing ‘hereditary potency’, which was conceived to determine both transmission and expression.” ---- Page 2, middle column.

dk

dk: That knowledge of reality is only acquired through science and ordinary experience.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]

[Edit by Kevin Dorner: Content deleted. dk, please check your PM's. livius: you beat me to it by about five seconds. You may remove the dk quote if you like (I would prefer it, but won't insist. Thanks.)]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

livius drusus

[dk's comments edited as per Kevin Dorner's sage advice]

That is nauseating, dk. You know perfectly well he wasn't in any way saying blonde people are "superior" to non-blonde people or that jews are sub-human. He is saying that some adaptations are superior in that they are survival aids in certain environments.

I am disgusted by this ignorant and malicious cheapshot. You owe lpetrich and the rest of the participants and lurkers on this thread an apology.

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: livius drusus ]</p>

Autonemesis

"Random and non-directed" do not go together. "Non-directed" alone describes evolution by natural selection. But "random" does not describe evolution. That randomly occurring events can affect the course of evolution is well-etablished, but the mechanisms by which those effects become expressed in the genomes of species is not random. Atoms can only be excited to certain discrete energy states. Chemical reactions proceed only in certain ways, and not willy-nilly or randomly like shaking up a hat of tickets for a lottery drawing.

You should discard the notion that "undirected" and "random" are synomyms. This mistake is hindering your understanding of the subject at hand.

Oh, but it is logically possible to prove the non-existence of God. The Christian God is said to have certain characteristics. That no such God with those characteristics exists has been proven with as much certainty as the fact that the Sun does not rise in the West. That you have failed to recognize the logic is no indicator that the proof has failed, it is indicative of a failure in your comprehension of the proof. Your insistence that "not directed" is equivalent to "random" is one of the misconceptions that hinders your understanding.

dk

I apologize, but lpetrich's response was contrary to mainstream science of evolution. What somebody feels superior, it has nothing to do with evolution. Direction in an evolutionary sense means complexity, not superiority. Why? Because complexity can be empirically measured. Is complexity superior? No!

Look, my complaint about evolution through all the bluff, name calling and absurdity, is simple.. The public doesn’t understand evolution so what the public schools teach isn’t evolution but ‘folk evolution’. I'm tired of people complaining about creatism, then a second later misrepresent evolution.

dk

Well if there's no issue, then its ok to teach creationism as a science. I disagree, but your the man.

dk

Ok, as far as you are aware. Please scan through following perspective <a href="http://www.esb.utexas.edu/dr325/WC-articles/ReDiscovery-History%20Genetics.pdf" target="_blank">Horticulture: the font for the babtism of Genetics</a>.

Reason serves to distinguish one thing from another. A good reason requires a logical explanation. Sounds to me like the lawyer was asking for a reason to distinguish evolution from reproduction, nothing else. It would probably do us all good to reasonably distinguish creation, evolution and reproduction, one from the other.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

Nat

"I apologize, but lpetrich's response was contrary to mainstream science of evolution. What somebody feels superior, it has nothing to do with evolution."

He wasn't talking about "feeling" superior. He was talking about reproductive advantage - i.e. a superior ability to reproduce in a given ecological niche.

I think you should go an get a new prescription on your meds - probably need a stronger dose.

[Edit by Kevin Dorner: Unwarranted ad hom removed. Fair is fair...]

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

Neruda

please dk, just use your brain for a few seconds. Say two random mutations occur within a pack of wolves living in the arctic: a female gives birth to several pups, one having an extra thick coat and another having a thin coat. all the other puppies have coats somewhere in between. The differences in the two puppy's genes that led to the differences in their coats was random, but because if the situation in which they arose, the puppy with the thin coat is more likely to die of cold in poor weather than the wolf with the thick coat, and therefore the wolf with the thick coat has an advantage. that is how evolution works, in very simple terms that everybody can understand. at least I hope...

says sciteach. duh! that was a quote buddy, I didn't say that.

dude, dk...didn't you understand what I was doing in my post? I mean, wasn't it obvious? didn't you see that I was quoting sciteach and then repeating his statements while changing "god" to unicorn and fairy? Why are you responding to those comments at all?

we've already explained to you, several times, why that statement is untrue. I see no reason to restate it again here if you simply choose to ignore it again.

speak for yourself dk, but everybody here is getting tired of your trolling.

ps418

Huh? What does this have to do with the subject we are discussing, which is that evolution can not accomodate any conceivable evidence?

Well, your 'disproof' would be no disproof at all, since its assumption is absurd to begin with. Living fossils are not a 'problem' for evolution. Now, why dont you reveal your non-evolutionary explanation for the distribution of fossil groups in the geologic record.

I have no idea what point you think you're trying to make, but you're not making it very well. In fact, you have simply evaded the point that evolution, contrary to your claim, can not accomodate any conceivable evidence, and that as an example the temporal distribution of fossil taxa could have definitely falsified evolution, but did not. Now, do you have any explanation for the temporal distribution of fossil taxa that works better than evolution? Created that way? Sorted that way by a flood? Progressive creation?

You are in disagreement with some prominent creationists. Which is good, because the prominent creationists I have in mind have their heads infinitely far up their metaphysical arses. For instance, Kurt Wise wrote:

<a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_21_4.html" target="_blank">Sadly, an Honest Creationist</a>

I'm glad you are not as openly dogmatic as Wise, or the countless other creationists who sign laughable 'statements of faith' in human creation a priori. That said, we don't need any additional evidence to conclude that humans have evolved, since the evidence is compelling as is.

Patrick

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>