On Sat, 03 May 2008 08:10:04 -0500, Free Lunch <lunch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Sat, 3 May 2008 06:01:43 -0700 (PDT), in alt.talk.creationism
>"IlBeBauck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBauck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
><eeb5ec69-977d-44ca-8217-3a765c3514bb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>:
>>On May 2, 9:02 pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>>> In article
<5aa53b76-ccb0-4f42-8265-2e082ba6b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
"IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On May 2, 1:15=A0pm, c...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Cary Kittrell)
wrote:
>>> > > In article
<9b8fa6e7-dca9-4acb-af5a-d5d225a5a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> > m> "IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <IlBeBa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>>
>>> > > > On May 1, 4:49=3DA0pm, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> > > > > Grrl Scientist
atwww.scienceblogs.com/grrlscientisthttp://tinyurl.com/=
>>> > 5la6=3D
>>> > > > lh
>>> > > > > re****ts on: "five male and five female Italian wall lizards,
Podarcis
>>> > > > > sicula, were translocated from the islet of Pod Kopiste to the
nearby
>>> > > > > islet of Pod Mrcaru, both of which belong to Croatia and are
located
>>> > > > > in the southern Adriatic Sea"
>>>
>>> > > > > War erupted and scientists never got back to see the lizards
until
>>> > > > > relatively recently. =3DA0What they found was an amazing
example of ju=
>>> > st
>>> > > > > how fast evolution can work its wiley ways.
>>>
>>> > > > > Footnote to idiot creationists: Yeah, they're still lizards,
and no,
>>> > > > > no scientist has ever claimed they're not. =3DA0But what
you're too st=
>>> > upid
>>> > > > > to grasp no matter how many times you're hit over your stupid
heads
>>> > > > > with it, evolution isn't just about speciation (which leads to
>>> > > > > everything else) and nothing more. =3DA0Evolution is about
change with=
>>> > in aas=3D
>>> > > > e
>>> > > > > gene pool. =3DA0That's what it's rooted in and that's how it
works its=
>>> > ion
>>> > > > > magic.
>>>
>>> > > > > It really is that simple. =3DA0And if you cannot grasp this
basic,
>>> > > > > demonstrated fact, then you too are really simple.
>>>
>>> > > > > Budikka
>>>
>>> > > > REPLY: =A0By what mechanism or evolutionary process does new
information=
>>>
>>> > > > become a part of the genome (which is needed for Darwinnian
Evolution
>>> > > > to be viable) ?
>>>
>>> > > Overall? =A0Multiple copies of a coding gene, followed by mutation
of
>>> > > one of the copies. =A0The organism now produces two different
>>> > > proteins, the original and a new variant.
>>>
>>> > > In a given organism? =A0Acquisition of genes from other species,
>>> > > most commonly via viruses.
>>>
>>> > > Not to metion that after a certain level of complexity is
>>> > > reuiached, new information is no longer necessary. =A0It's
>>> > > not new genes any longer, it's different switch settings
>>> > > (sed "evo-devo");
>>>
>>> > > REPLY: That is quite remarkable indeed. Has any scientist(s)
calculated=
>>> > the chances that new life forms came about by this mutated process
? than=
>>> > ks.
>>>
>>> By any single event of this type? I'm not sure.
>>>
>>> By ac***ulations of these changes? Well, that's what evolution
>>> is all about.
>>>
>>> Incidentally, I don't know if you'd consider this "new information" or
>>> not, but I can think of an example where repeated copies of a single
gene
>>> seem related to fitness: it's been found recently that humans
>>> living in cultures which eat a lot of starch have more copies of
>>> the gene which produces the starch-digesting enzyme amalyze.
>>>
>>> Multiple copies can be bad too, as in Huntington's chorea or
>>> fragile-X syndrome.
>>>
>>> -- cary- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>REPLY: Well, lets see what staunch atheist / co-discoverer of the
>>DNA structure , Dr. Francis Crick, has to say on the mathematical
>>probability that life formed in this way by accident. (and before I
>>do, just let me say : 'Case closed !' ....based on the worlds foremost
>>leading Biologist ,and atheist at that) . So, could you tell us what
>>your personal ulterior motive would be for rejecting God ?
>>Thanks. :
>>
>Thank you for demonstrating that you do not understand anything about
>science and don't care that you have quotes that are misleading without
>context. You have once again demonstrated your moral corruption and
>commitment to fight truth wherever you find it.
>
>[quotes deleted because they are not properly attributed and are
>generally taken out of context, more evidence of the dishonesty of
>Christianists]
Those numbers try to represent the odds of a complete organism
spontaneously
developing, so they don't realize it but they are proving the unlikeliness
that
their god exists.
Ben
|
