Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Suboptimal design

Expand Messages
  • D R Lindberg
    ... evolution. ... the ... science ... Again you change the parameters of what you are demanding. Actually, if you make a claim, it is up to you to provide
    Message 1 of 121 , Dec 30, 2012
      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm wrote:
      > D R Lindberg: Again the galloping goalposts. If you want molecular
      > biology, PubMed has 35615 references under molcular biology and
      > Or you could look at the following:
      > http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/disease/lectures.html
      > http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/stemcells/lectures.html
      > http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/rna/lectures.html
      > http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/genomics/lectures.html
      > http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/immunology/lectures.html
      > D R Lindberg: When you've finished these and need more, just holler!
      > Charles P: This is another attempt to draw our attention away from
      > central issue. James A Shapiro used ten references to Evo-Devo in his
      > book. You and Gluadys are supposed to be searching for molecular
      > references from Dawkins and Coyne.

      Again you change the parameters of what you are demanding.

      Actually, if you make a claim, it is up to you to provide positive
      evidence, not to others to disprove it.

      But this rule doesn't seem to apply to creationists.

      >Dawkins and Coyne have ignored over 60
      > years of molecular science.
      > James A Shapiro: One reason Darwinism has failed to convince skeptics
      may be
      > that it ignores over 60 years of molecular science.

      Darwin has been dead for more than 130 years, so it is not surprising
      that he was not aware of discoveries made in the last 60 years.

      But if by "Darwinism," you mean present day evolutionary theory, it
      amounts to far more than Dawkins and Coyne, and certainly more than one
      book by each of them. Whatever they happen to say or not say is hardly a
      central issue of anything. Your comment is like saying WW II historians
      ignore the Pearl Harbor attack because it wasn't mentioned in a couple
      you happened to read out of the many books out there about the Battle of

      It takes less than a moment to find articles on Dawkins's website
      relating to molecular biology so he's hardly ignoring it. Here are two:

      But even with respect to the two books you mention, the statement is
      false. I have already pointed this out with respect to Dawkins, and as
      for Coyne, there is this:

      From a review:
      "Jerry Coyne weaves together the many threads of modern work in
      genetics, paleontology, geology, molecular biology, and anatomy that
      demonstrate the "indelible stamp" of the processes first
      proposed by Darwin."


      "Molecular evidence suggests that our common ancestor with the
      chimpanzees lived, in Africa, between 5 and 7 million years ago, say
      half a million generations ago. This is not long by evolutionary
      — Richard Dawkins

      I've always felt that we evolutionary biologists are the most
      fortunate of all scientists, because the whole purview of life is our
      study. On any given day, I'll be reading papers on molecular
      biology, on biogeography, on physiology, on embryology, on the fossil
      record. It all rolls into the process of evolution.
      - Jerry Coyne

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and
      Message 121 of 121 , Feb 11, 2013
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)

        > David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
        > LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
        > ----------------------------
        > "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
        > held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
        > characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
        > orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
        > and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
        > scientific truth."'
        > (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
        > ======================
        > Laurie.
        > "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
        > incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
        > will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)

        David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.

        LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;


        "Once we see, however, that the probability of life
        originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
        the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
        that the favourable properties of physics on which life
        depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .

        "It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
        measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
        higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
        idealized limit of God."

        (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
        Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
        Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
        Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
        J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)



        "We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)


        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.