Speakeasy forum

General discussion


Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Evolution
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Evolution
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
It's pure faith.

In reply to: Evolution

They just don't like that word, so they insist it's a fact. Other religions, of course, are to be ridiculed as 'unscientific'.

Collapse -
Haven't we (man) dissuaded all religions

In reply to: It's pure faith.

that didn't conform to our beliefs. (excuse me while I go find a larger blanket) The Indians (native americans) had many Gods, the Egytians had RA +, the romans had multiple Gods (until Constantine anyway) the Greeks had just as many, the Chinese have Buddha. It goes on and on. Who's right who's wrong?

Even here we have multiple beliefs.

Freedom of religion my brother. I'll just go back to listening to my music.

CSN&Y right now

I am yours you are my mine...

Okay now I'm just babbling.

Collapse -
First you would need to develop

In reply to: Haven't we (man) dissuaded all religions

a notion of time without a first or last tick of a clock and then believe in the basic principles of gazorninplat.
Ga??? What??. Google it and find out.:)

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Oops. Meant to append to first post.

In reply to: First you would need to develop

Collapse -
(NT) (NT) Only those that will admit to being religions.

In reply to: Haven't we (man) dissuaded all religions

Collapse -
Didn't find "hornet's nest" in my bible,

In reply to: Evolution

but I did find Pr 6:12-19. Read and apply as you will ... Happy

Back in the day I loved sciences of all kinds, except their Queen, which I don't understand to this day. Even then I was like your source, noticing inconsistencies in evolution as set forth in the Scientific American., among others. (Lord Kelvin lambasted the evolutionists of his day, and I've never seen a good reply to the lambasting.)

Nowadays I'm supposed to disbelieve evolution on account of 'fanatical cult brainwashing.' My disbelief is stronger, but also better grounded. (And I still love science.) One of my best sources for a thorough look at the topic is the heavily endnoted book Life-How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?, 1985, available at your local Kingdom Hall. I claim it's a balanced, non-fanatical look at the problem. I tell you, from my own past readings, that it's a much more, um, charitable look at evolutionists than they often give themselves. (Those guys get nasty when they're angered- like a disturbed hornet's nest!
Another, briefer view is in Is There a Creator Who Cares About You?, same source.
Check 'em out. You've got nothing to lose, unless they lock you inside the Hall and throw bibles at you. Happy
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
maybe you are generalizing a bit

In reply to: Didn't find "hornet's nest" in my bible,

Have I ever "get nasty when ... angered like a disturbed hornet's nest"? Happy

Collapse -
No, never nasty. In fact, we're having you

In reply to: maybe you are generalizing a bit

drummed out of SE. Happy
I wasn't referring to SE, but 'name brand' evolutionists. Each has his own corner staked out, and defends it to the death. As mentioned other places on SE, it's hard to tell which group has more "blind faith" in its "god"- bible beaters or fossil beaters. Happy
It's a tough life for them because each fossil seems to overturn the carefully-built doctrines around the previous. I remember many such even before I got interested in the bible. The bible, OTOH, hasn't had any substantive changes in centuries, just small adjustments and many confirming finds.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
A good scientist

In reply to: No, never nasty. In fact, we're having you

Will welcome any kind of change that furthers his knowledge, whether it changes the way he thought it was one way or the other. Its the process that he should not have to have 'faith' in, because the process works.

There are too many who think all the answers should be answered, or else a theory is no good. Thats not the way it works.

Collapse -
"In this best of all possible worlds"

In reply to: A good scientist

And then I woke up. Happy

In any case, I and the Watchtower people separately arrived at the finding that scientists are human, fallible, egotistical, insecure, devious; that is, from the same gene pool you and I come from.

And please notice the language in some quotes from our book that I mentioned earlier, under the Ch. 2 subhead, "Evolution under assault" (emphasis added):

[quote] Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: "The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology's last twenty years has inflamed passions." He spoke of the "lack of total agreement even within the warring camps," and added, "things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists."4
Evolutionist [Francis] Hitching agreed, saying: "Feuds concerning the theory of evolution exploded . . . Entrenched positions, for and against, were established in high places, and insults lobbed like mortar bombs from either side." He said that it is an academic dispute of far-reaching proportions, "potentially one of those times in science when, quite suddenly, a long-held idea is overthrown by the weight of contrary evidence and a new one takes its place."6 [end quote]

Endnote 4: Natural History, "Evolutionary Housecleaning," by Niles Eldredge, February 1982, pp. 78, 81.
Endnote 6: 2. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 7,8.
Hitching's book is well-known, and Natural History. is peer-reviewed, I think.
And Hitching's last comment reminds me of the reception given Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift: A nasa.gov site for children says merely that "Wegener's Continental Drift theory was not readily accepted by the science community of his day." But I remember a Scientific American article from the 60s, when plate tectonics was beginning to explain Wegener's ideas, that showed "not readily accepted" was a euphemism for "ridiculed," as is often the case. That article, which did an excellent job of explaining the whole idea, was one of the first to ring in the new data from mapping of the continental shelves, not the landforms themselves. Underwater, as you no doubt know, Africa and S America cozy up quite nicely.

My own experiences involve, among others, the changing view of Neanderthal man and the all-too-human reasons for the changes. And perhaps you're familiar with New Mexico's own dirty laundry: Sandia man.

Maybe the tone of calm assessment in your post is because you haven't looked out your window lately to see if your own ox is being gored. Happy
Remember: Publish or perish!
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Your discourse is an excellent example of

In reply to: "In this best of all possible worlds"

Collapse -
Thanks (I think!) :-)

In reply to: Your discourse is an excellent example of

I was focusing on the rancor part, which Dragon and I had been discussing. Should have mentioned that I was student rep on a couple of faculty academic groups in U., and I saw rancor for a lifetime!
Further point: Good can come of 'elevated' discussion, but not flaming, whether in 'groves of academe' or in Flanders fields (where the poppies famously grow) or in S of France (where the First Crusade Petered out).
Therefore, he said in conclusion, "fundamentalists" have no lock on fanaticism. Let's forget that rep and simply look at the two records: of the bible and of nature.
BTW, Jesus did give one 'philosopher's stone' to use: ". . .Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men]." (Mt 7:20)
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
Examples of feedback by evolutionists

In reply to: Thanks (I think!) :-)

Can be found at this site. I was just reading the January feedback, here. This is about as rancorous as they ever get. Happy

But I know you have a point where some people stake their professional reputations on a particular stance and defend it as if their livelihoods depend on it.

Collapse -
Actually, I wouldn't hold you to usenet rancor. :-)

In reply to: Examples of feedback by evolutionists

"stake their professional reputations"
Amen, brother, and not just in evolution.
"Sandia Man" (now classed with Piltdown et al.) didn't prove/disprove evolution, just established the rep of a prominent UNM anthropologist who used academic bullying for years to hold down dissent. Among other problems, fossil provenance was suspect almost from the first.
Another quote I remember, from Change, was 'Academic infighting is so fierce because the stakes are so small.' From a fired UT Austin president who said they canned him while he was getting open-heart surgery; sent his desk contents to his wife with a note: 'Tell him not to come back.'

Anyway, I try to keep myself in line with that Renaissance man, Paul, master of the run-on sentence. Happy
In Php 3:4-11, esp. "I consider [my earlier attainments] as a lot of refuse," he said it was more important, and implied it was more fun, having Christianity than the other stuff. And so I have found it to be.

What's your hangup, he asked bluntly; what turns you off about taking the bible seriously?
BTW, what's your discipline?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
re Php 3:4-11

In reply to: Actually, I wouldn't hold you to usenet rancor. :-)

But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ...

Sounds to me like he gave -everything- up for Jesus.

I dont really have a discipline. I am undisciplined. Happy

But I have had an interest in science all of my life. My major was psychology, but I just took that because it was interesting, not because there was any job that would pay me anything.

BTW, Piltdown man was one of the biggest hoaxes, ever, and probably did more harm to evolution than anything. It was a good thing a guy (dont know is name, offhand) came along who took a closer look at the 'fossil' and began to ask a few penetrating questions which previously had been taken for granted.
Collapse -
There was a recent PBS thing on Piltdown.

In reply to: re Php 3:4-11

I believe the producers claimed to have a 'positive ID on the perp.' (I watch way too much **** Wolfe!) I also remember Philip Morrison reviewing a book on it many years ago. One of those involved was Teilhard de Chardin, a Catholic priest and Darwin apologist; seems he was on the side of the hoaxers, which helped their cause. (To get the "obvious" fraud accepted as a prank on a disliked colleague, I think.)

Kipling wrote a wonderful story on a similar topic called "Dayspring Mishandled;" a literary hoax with a neat twist.

BTW when I was in 9th grade, I think, "Piltdown Man" was the correct answer to #7 on the midterm; a few years later it was one of the incorrect choices.

Paul: He was saying he traded, not gave up. Example: You spend some years studying psych because you like it and have peer approval. Then you discover accounting, and like it better. You switch even though:
-Everyone looks down on accountants.
-You give up tenure.
-Start at bottom at new firm.

Re our original topic: The Piltdowns don't bother me, and it's almost to easy to throw it at those 'agents of Satan,' evolutionists. My personal complaint is the archaeopteryx stuff. Some years ago a fossil animal was discovered 'out of order:' More feathers than A., but earlier in history, I think. Anyway, I didn't see any flak on it; I'm guessing A. is still taught as a proper link. At least some intellectual dishonesty there IMO.

Couple of sidebars I may have mentioned elsewhere:
When evolutionists (not Sagan, the Teflon scientist) write about their topic in the lay press, I'm told they get hate mail from "Christians;" quite vicious ones. Not proper: Love thy enemies and all that.

Morrison reviewed a Chinese scientist's book called The Tao of Physics. (I think), and Morrison said the man proved to him on principle that natural selection cannot work as an evolutionary engine. You might claim M. not qualified, except he was qualified for the math (ex-Manhattan Project) and he's a very reliable polymath. (He wrote two things over the years that gave me insight into some bible topics; suppose I should thank him.) In other words, I think I'm entitled to ask why natural selection is still being taught.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
In more or less reverse order...

In reply to: There was a recent PBS thing on Piltdown.

About Darwin... It seems hes one of the most misunderstood and misquoted people in the world.

Natural selection cannot be considered 'the' mechanism for change. If it is taught that way in schools, then they are somewhat behind the times. Ive learned that often, textbooks have wrong facts, misleading pictures, and so forth, which are used as tools by anti-evolutionist against 'evolution'. But it natural selection must play a part in evolution.

I recently saww a show about Piltdown Man, myself. There were a number of people who had a motive for creating this hoax, including the likes of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

I agree that archaeopteryx, especially since it was proven to be an evolutionary dead end, some nine years ago. I woudnt bet against you that the 'bird' is still being taught as a predecessor to the modern bird. It may not be completely out of intellectual dishonesty, though, but just plain ignorance or laziness.

About work... hmmm. Since I was a little boy, Ive never known what I wanted to be. Nothing fit. Lately, Ive decided to maybe do a little work on my own, helping people get rid of the pesky little critters in their puters. I happened to know thats one of the reasons people take their puters to the hospital, or call for technical help.

Collapse -
In no particular order:

In reply to: Actually, I wouldn't hold you to usenet rancor. :-)

natural selection
I'll stick with Morrison and the "Tao" guy; if they say no, I say no. (Blind faith!) Happy

mutation of any kind or frequency
From pp 100-101 of our book:
"If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: 'Most of them are harmful or lethal.' Peo Koller states: 'The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene.'"
I must agree. Your link
talks about various mechanisms but proves none. "Genetic drift" still involves mutations; see Sagan and Koller.
On p. 104 our book has a photo of famous mutated fruit flies. The caption: "Experiments with fruit flies produced many malformed mutants, but they always remained fruit flies." No speciation. More telling is the picture of 8 mutants; unlike the hardbodies on Mutant X, they're butt-ugly in impractical ways: The ones with enlarged eyes may well be blind, the one with the enlarged abdomen (more eggs?) has no wings and deformed legs. Bigger egg capacity is no good if you can't get down to the fruit fly honkytonk on Saturday night. And I'm being asked to believe that larger, more complex animals (upright, bipedal mammals come to mind) will benefit from this broadaxe surgery!?
And, the fruit fly having proved so successful as-is, how would any mutation improve the breed? The famous ants-in-amber were successful bugs in their day, and their virtually identical offspring continue to upset picknickers today.

A specific problem: When the amphibian supposedly evolved into a reptile, the wastes eliminated were noted to have changed from urea to uric acid. But when the reptile became a mammal there was a reversal. Mammals went back to the amphibian way, eliminating wastes as urea. In effect, evolution went backward-something that theoretically it is not supposed to do.

macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution
Darwin: "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by [evolution], seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."
Rob't Jastrow: "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."
Even in my 'evil atheist' days I remember being in awe of mitochondria alone, via several SA articles over the years. How do you explain its development by evolution, slow or punctuated? How did the cell stay alive while mitochondria were being developed? If there was another energy source, it was working; why replace it?
"[D.J. Futuyma's] description would be incomprehensible to Darwin since he was unaware of genes and genetic drift," says TalkOrigins' Laurence Moran. Darwin knew relatively less about the 'life factory' that contains the genes. More complexity than the eye in less space.

Ahh, I could go on and on in my fanatical way. Mt 7:15-20 was applied to men, but I use it also to judge ideas: "By their fruits you will know them." That old, 'book of myths,' the bible, has improved my life and life prospects tremendously.
How has evolution helped you? And aren't you glad you didn't evolve into an Ojibway or Balkan Muslim or Balkan Orthodox or Balkan Catholic or Saudi peasant or ...?
Regards, Doug in New Mexico
Collapse -
Just discovered a mutation in the laboratory

In reply to: In no particular order:

where they were doing research skin aging. They dont know how it happened, and so far have not been able to duplicate it.

I agree most mutations are not beneficial. Others are indifferent, and others are beneficial. Those that are beneficial are passed on. If conditions are such that those with the benefical mutation are spared while others perish, then the old version will never again be seen.

More later.

Collapse -
Re: hornets

In reply to: Evolution

This is by way of whacking a hornets nest with a stick just for fun.

I would not recommend doing this with the Giant Hornets of Japan.
Collapse -

In reply to: Re: hornets

I remember reading years ago that solitary wasps do more pollinating in the wild than bees. Even if true, though, I wonder what the perceived advantage is to us of the giants' behaviors.
Regards, Doug in New Mexico

Collapse -
I see a monster movie in the making

In reply to: Re: hornets

Killer bees vs giant hornets, they fight for the rights to human prey.

Seriously, I hope this one never gets established anywhere in the Americas.



click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

Collapse -
theyd get rid of this locust problem

In reply to: Re: hornets


FUERTEVENTURA, Spain -- Locusts fly on to Fuerteventura Island, in the Spanish Canary Islands. The locusts have flown 100 kilometers (60 miles) across the ocean after a infestation that wreaked havoc in North Africa. (11/29/04 AP photo)

But then what? Never mind. Happy

Popular Forums

Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
Laptops 21,181 discussions
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
Phones 17,137 discussions
Security 31,287 discussions
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
Windows 10 2,657 discussions


Best Black Friday Deals

CNET editors are busy culling the list and highlighting what we think are the best deals out there this holiday season.