Global Myths - Evolution spin-off

[SeanG]

SlySpy, an actual infinity is impossible. A really good and interesting read on this subject can be found in a comparative religious book entitled See the Gods Fall. The chapter on Mormonism deals with this subject.

Sonart, you said:

And since poor, uneducated women have more children than educated women, what's that suggest for the human race? Devolution?

Being poor is devolution? Shame on you.

I have read large swaths of the book Melanism, and this one Pooey:

from: http://www.hebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6103



I suggest you read this book as it came out 4-years after Majerus’ book and deals with more recent info. Also, nothing in that link refuted my claims Poooey. For an example of neo-Darwinism to be a valid example, you have to show me that new information arose where previously there wasn’t any. No new information was created! Black moths existed before & after the revolution. Nor have you shown me that these moths rest of tree trunks in the wild.

In a series of experiments between 1965 and 1969, Sargent tried to replicate Kettlewell’s background-preference work. He got contradictory results, and concluded that the moths’ resting places were [i]genetically predetermined, not selected, as Kettlewell believed, by individual moths noting whether their “circumocular tufts” matched the background. Of Moths and Men, pp. 249-250.

Poooey, you said:

If you don't trust science then why are you using a computer? Why do you receive medical care? Why do you use artificial transport?

Way to set up a straw man Poooey! There is a difference between operating science and origin science. Let me repeat, there is a difference between operating science and origin science. Operating science built the computer I am using, not origin science. Origin of life scientists use operating science in their experiments at times, but operating science hasn’t given an example of evolution as of yet. Artists have given origin scientists what they are looking for, in fact, one of my favorite pictures - drawings - is this:




A tooth was found in a field, a single tooth, and this drawing showed up in the popular press of the day from that single tooth. A whole community of persons and their environment. The tooth was later found to be from an extinct pig. But this tooth had already served its purpose, it was used as a “proof” of evolution in the Scopes Trial. Just as the peppered moths were used (and is still used) as a proof in textbooks and classrooms all over the world. Icons for the non-religious, that’s all they are.

[Matt W]

A query - do you really want to teach Creationism instead of Evolution, and, if so, would you object to every other religions' Creation story being taught at the same time? After all, they're all theories...of one sort or another.

[Starboy]

Quote by: SeanG Starboy, you are correct that one being wrong does not automatically make the other right, however, there are only two possibilities: "There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility.” (Dr. George Wald) “Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed, or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” (Douglas Futuyma)

The devil is in the details. It is not as if there is only one creation account. And not all creation accounts require god. It is not as if there is only one possible scientific explanation. Also most people confuse evolution with abiogenesis. There is no doubt that evolution explains a great deal but there is also no doubt that there is much that it does not explain. However in science the most preferred explanation goes to the explaination that can explain the most. That would be evolution. People who want to cling to creationism do not care about all the nitty gritty natural facts around them that are begging for an explanation, they are hung up on a general concept of trying to figure out why they are here. The explanations that they come up with to account for that using supernatural constructs have all sucked as compared to evolution for explaining the nitty gritty facts around us. That is not to say that evolution is the end all and be all explanation all it means is that no one has come up with a better explanation. You are certainly welcome to do it but if you do, realize that it will have to account for everything that evolution accounts for and then some. And it must work before the fact, not after the fact. If you can do that then go get your Nobel Prize.

Starboy, another topic quickly. I checked out a source and what they used as a source after you asked - in reference to brain waves and the fetus - I was very disappointed… I bow down. There is an Ohio Dept of Health ref., but I am not holding my breath. G.

Just trying to keep it honest.

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: SeanG Sonart, you said:Being poor is devolution? Shame on you. I have read large swaths of the book Melanism, and this one Pooey: from: http://www.hebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C6103 I suggest you read this book as it came out 4-years after Majerus’ book and deals with more recent info. Also, nothing in that link refuted my claims Poooey. For an example of neo-Darwinism to be a valid example, you have to show me that new information arose where previously there wasn’t any. No new information was created! Black moths existed before & after the revolution. Nor have you shown me that these moths rest of tree trunks in the wild.

New information? I see you don't even know what you're talking about. The Black Moth experiment was used to show natural selection in action, that is, genes already present but the frequency of the alleles has modified over time due to selection pressure.

If you really want to push on with your failing battle fine. I'll quote some of the latest papers published. Like this one, and this one, and this one.

Quote by: SeanG Poooey, you said:Way to set up a straw man Poooey! There is a difference between operating science and origin science. Let me repeat, there is a difference between operating science and origin science. Operating science built the computer I am using, not origin science. Origin of life scientists use operating science in their experiments at times, but operating science hasn’t given an example of evolution as of yet.

I'm sorry, but science is science, science is a methology used to explain the nature world, the explanations which can take form of equations and numbers are used and applied in our constructs. They work by same principles.

Btw, there is only two "o"s in Pooey, and I know it's a deliberate mistake you're doing because it is repeated and consistent.

Quote by: SeanG Artists have given origin scientists what they are looking for, in fact, one of my favorite pictures - drawings - is this: A tooth was found in a field, a single tooth, and this drawing showed up in the popular press of the day from that single tooth. A whole community of persons and their environment. The tooth was later found to be from an extinct pig. But this tooth had already served its purpose, it was used as a “proof” of evolution in the Scopes Trial. Just as the peppered moths were used (and is still used) as a proof in textbooks and classrooms all over the world. Icons for the non-religious, that’s all they are.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. I've already admitted that science isn't infallible, it does make mistakes and it does self correct them as history has shown.

Let's be honest Mr SeanG, you're just a typical creationist, no matter how much scientific data we present, you won't be willing to accept it because it is in your intentions not to. Doesn't really bother me except if you try to mislead people to believing your view, one which is so obviously wrong and outdated.

[Sonart]

Quote by: SeanG Being poor is devolution? Shame on you.

Well it makes as much sense as your signature, doesn't it?


.

[Starboy]

Go easy on SeanG. He comes from a long tradition of opposing something without having to know much about it or understand it. Is it not obvious that SeanG doesn't get ToE?

Starboy

[SlySpy]

Quote by: SeanG SlySpy, an actual infinity is impossible. A really good and interesting read on this subject can be found in a comparative religious book entitled See the Gods Fall. The chapter on Mormonism deals with this subject..

Sorry, but I'm not about to buy a book over a simple assertion. Since you have recommended this book to me, I assume that you have most likely read it and understood it, so you would be doing a great service to me if you would defend your point yourself based on what you have read.

[SeanG]

Matt W, you are throwing around terms with a meaning that I am sure no creationist would agree with. You are asking me to agree with a straw-man, even if you don’t realize it or mean to do it. A mock conversation [from the jr. high level book [u]What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution[/b]:

Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways. Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for. Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?” Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why? Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words. “ Evolutionist: Wagon words? Creationist: Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon]. Evolutionist: How do you mean? Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it. Evolutionist: You mean I win already? Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations. Evolutionist: What about “creationism?” Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days. Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad? Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the spontaneous appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain). Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad. Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want? This Term… will mean this. Creation or Creation-science: The belief that the earth is no more than 10,0000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence. Intelligent Design or Design Theory: The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation. Darwinism: The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent). Micro-evolution: Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs. Macro-evolution: Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. Common Descent: The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor[s].

Take note Matt W that in Christian private schools, where both theories are taught and discussed… with one side of the classroom defends evolution while critiquing creation theories and the other side of the classroom doing likewise with creation theories, when these kids graduate from high school and go to college, they do better on their SATs and have a deeper and more meaningful understanding of the controversy. In other words, they know evolution better than a graduate from a public school who is just gravy-fed a box to think in.

Other religions that I know of for the most part accept evolution:

The religions of the world that say we evolved over a very long period by a slow evolutionary process are the following: Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judaism, Liberal-Islam, Liberal-Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism. Of course there are differences in the subtleties of these religious belief systems, for example: in Hinduism the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, who himself is on the back of another – larger – turtle. What we end up with is an infinite progression to an even larger turtle. Nevertheless, the point is, the Hindu believes that all life originally came from the simplest forms, and through millions of years of evolutionary change, we now have arrived at the current phoenix of evolution, man. The only religions that accept the literal, Biblical interpretation of origins are the following: Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Islam, and Orthodox Christianity.

Gradualism and punctuated equilibrium fit well within the larger list of religious traditions from around the world.

[SeanG]

Starboy you said:

People who want to cling to creationism do not care about all the nitty gritty natural facts around them that are begging for an explanation, they are hung up on a general concept of trying to figure out why they are here.

This is false and a sweeping straw-man argument. A religious creationist came up and codified the scientific method?! I would say that, for instance, when the appendix was placed on a list with 180 organs and body-parts as being useless and vestigial - with no scientific justification or rigorous testing, then the actual use of the appendix was ignored for far too many years while evolutionists tried to figure out if it had more in common with a rabbit or some other creature, and what it use to be used for. A creationist would look at the appendix and say, “this was designed for a purpose,” the evolutionist would look at it and say, “I see no use for it… therefore it is useless.” I would like to post a paper I gave to my son’s principle and science teacher, please read it through-and-through and be honest in that now, really after 100 years is science again interested in what function the appendix has (I will tack on a second response that I will separate with a line):

The Appendix Dr. Kawanishi [1], showed that human lymphoid cells in the appendix are immunologically functional as T helper cells and antibody-producing B cells, making IgA molecules in response to immunological challenges. He noted that: “The human appendix, long considered only an accessory rudimentary organ, could posses a similar antigen uptake role prior to replacement by fibrosed tissue after repeated subclinical infections, or at least in early childhood when it is most prominent.” [2] The appendix is also rich in argentaffin cells, which can be identified with the use of silver salt staining. The function of these cells has long been obscure, but the evidence suggests that they may be involved with endocrine gland function [3]. Many sources (encyclopedias, textbooks, etc.) still erroneously state that the appendix is useless. Interestingly, the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia states in one place: that “In humans the cecum and appendix have no important function,” and in another place that “the appendix is now thought to be one of the sites where immune responses are initiated.” Dr. Howard R. Bierman… studied several hundred patients with leukemia, Hodgkin’s disease, cancer of the colon and cancer of the ovaries. He found that 84% [of his sample] had [their] appendix removed…. In a control group without cancer, only 25% had it removed [4]. Bierman himself had concluded that the appendix may be an immunological organ whose premature removal during its functional period permits leukemia and other related forms of cancer to begin their development [5]. Bierman and his associates realized that the lymphoid tissue located on the walls of the appendix may secrete antibodies which protect the body against various viral agents. While high school and college textbooks today will mention the appendix as vestigial, specialists in their field have for many years stated the necessity of the appendix as useful. “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure.” [6] “For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of… the thymus gland…. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless vestigial organ which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however,… men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases…. Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils, and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses.” [7] “The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” [8] “The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system.” [9] The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major function peaks in this neonatal period. Making it anything other than vestigial! As Dr. Peter Faletra (Ph.D.), who is Senior Science Advisor Office of Science Department of Energy, says in response to a question on an online question-and-answer service for K-12 teachers run by the Argonne National Laboratories: “As a histologist I see no reason to consider the v. appendix as having no function since it contains numerous lymphoid follicles that produce functional lymphocytes and a rich blood supply to communicate them. The general idea of vestigial organs is to me a measure of ignorance, arrogance and lack of imagination. Ignorance in that we label it as such because we do not know its function; arrogance in that we declare it of no value since we can see none; and lacking in imagination in so far as when we cannot see its function cannot imagine one. I call your attention to that other ‘vestigial organ’ the thymus without which, in early life, we would produce a severely compromised cell-mediated immune system as the ‘nude’ mouse and numerous thymectomized mammalian studies have shown. Although some general reference books still list the v. appendix as ‘vestigial’ most immunologists (I included) would strongly disagree!” [10] (emphises added) ------------------------------------------------------------ Oh, I forgot, as I was falling asleep last night and running through the day in my head, something occurred to me. You mentioned that theories are, quote: “Theories are well tested concepts scientists use to help explain something based on repeated findings.” Yes, a great quick explanation of a proper theory. However, when the appendix was placed on the vestigial organ list along with 180 other organs by Ernst Haekel in the late 1800‘s - where it has stayed since - no repeatable tests with observations were ever done to confirm the hypothesis that it was useless. In fact, every medical test done of the type of tissue found (argentaffin cells, and lymphoid cells) in the appendix shows that it has a use, since they have a use. So I would say that the theory that it is useful is quite sound, where as the hypothesis that it is useless is waning.

References

• [1] H. Kawanishi, “Immunocompetence of Normal Appendiceal Lymphoid cells: in vitro studies,” Immunology, 60(1) (1987), pp. 19-28.
  
  [2] Ibid., p. 19.
  
  [3] Marti-Ibanez (editor), “Tuber of Life,” M. D. Magazine (1970) #14, p. 240; William J. Banks, Applied Veterinary Histology (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore: 1981), p. 390.
  
  [4] Richard G. Culp, Remember thy Creator (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,; MI: 1975).
  
  [5] Howard R. Bierman, “Human Appendix and Neoplasia,” Cancer 21 (1) (1968), pp. 109-118.
  
  [6] William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149.
  
  [7] “The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health,” in Reader's Digest, November (1966), pp. 229, 235.
  
  [8] Henry L. Bockus, Gastroenterology, 2:1134-1148 [chapter The Appendix, by Gordon McHardy], (W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania: 1976).
  
  [9] Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: 1995), p. 916
  
  [10] From the site Newton, which is an electronic community for Science, Math, and Computer Science K-12 Educators. Argonne National Laboratory, Division of Educational Programs, Harold Myron, Ph.D., Division Director. Quote from: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mole00225.htm
  Home page: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/

[SeanG]

Pooey, maybe we are missing each others point. Creationists and Intelligent Design persons all believe that natural selection takes place. For instance. If the genes that make up short and long hair in dogs make short, medium, and long haired dogs, that’s fine. And if the earth goes into a deep-freeze, the dogs with the genes for short and medium hair all die (man cannot intervene, the dogs are left to nature), then the information for the short hair is missing. The long-haired dogs were selected to survive, however, information from the parent population has been lost.

So goes the story of melanin. The changing populations of dark and light moths do show selection. However, this selction was not caused by birds eating them off of tree trunks.

“But the problem is that we do not know the resting sites of the moth during the day time. … In 25 years we have found only two betularia on the tree trunks or walls adjacent to our traps (one on an appropriate background and one not), and none elsewhere.” C.A. Clarke, G.S. Mani and G. Wynne, “Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air and the Peppered Moth,” Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 26:189–199, 1985; quote on p. 197.

There are probably other causes for this shift, but this shift only changes existing moths and colors. Just as our eye color is already present, so is the moths.

Unfettered by evolutionary “just so” stories, researchers can now look for the real causes of these population shifts. Might the dark form actually have a function, like absorbing more warmth? Could it reflect conditions in the caterpillar stage? In a different nocturnal moth species, Sargent has found that the plants eaten by the larvae may induce or repress the expression of such “melanism” in adult moths (see Sargent T.R. et al. in M.K. Hecht et al, Evolutionary Biology 30:299–322, Plenum Press, New York, 1998).

The textbooks all mention that the moths rest on trees, this is just not the case:

“The moths filmed being eaten by the birds were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car bonnet (hood).” Calgary Herald, p. D3, 21 March 1999. “University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.’” J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36. & The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999.

So I agree that natural selection exists, however, this is not a cause or mechanism for evolutionary changes, which is then where the textbooks and neo-Darwinists then beg the question.

I hoped this refining helped?
G

[SeanG]

SlySpy, Go here:

Nature of Infinity

[fushigi]

Quote by: SeanG Way to set up a straw man Poooey!

By comparison, your endless rant against Haeckel was a Guy Fawkes. And then it turned out to be wrong. That's a double-fallacy on you, 15 yard penalty, 1st down.

[Starboy]

Quote by: SeanG Starboy you said:This is false and a sweeping straw-man argument. A religious creationist came up and codified the scientific method?!

Talk about straw men arguments. Did you read what I wrote? Scientists can have explanations that are completely wrong, that don’t make creationism right.

I would say that, for instance, when the appendix was placed on a list with 180 organs and body-parts as being useless and vestigial - with no scientific justification or rigorous testing, then the actual use of the appendix was ignored for far too many years while evolutionists tried to figure out if it had more in common with a rabbit or some other creature, and what it use to be used for. A creationist would look at the appendix and say, “this was designed for a purpose,” the evolutionist would look at it and say, “I see no use for it… therefore it is useless.” I would like to post a paper I gave to my son’s principle and science teacher, please read it through-and-through and be honest in that now, really after 100 years is science again interested in what function the appendix has (I will tack on a second response that I will separate with a line):

This is very funny SeanG. The creationist can say any dang thing they want but unless they can show what the appendix does that is necessary to the body they are no better off than the biologist that uses natural explanations like evolution.

You seem to think that because scientific explanations are not perfect that one should then abandon them. Well I have a hot news flash for you. No scientific explanation is perfect. Not a single one. That is not how science is done. Explanations are preferred over other explanations based on how well they work and what they can predict.

The problem with explanations based on a designer is that without the plans it tells you nothing. Where are the designer’s plans? What can you predict with these non-existent plans that are better than no explanation at all? Say anything you want about ToE, creationism sucks as a scientific theory compared to ToE.

But hey, you magical thinkers are hell bent on screwing up the country. I say that you should all get what you want. Completely destroy science. Replace it with the theory of angels and demons. Diagnose people’s ills by their sins. Perform exorcism for mental illness. Stop teaching science of any kind. Pray for god’s intervention. It will be interesting to see just how fast this country gets flushed down the toilet because you have all essentially gone mad.

Starboy

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: SeanG Pooey, maybe we are missing each others point. Creationists and Intelligent Design persons all believe that natural selection takes place. For instance. If the genes that make up short and long hair in dogs make short, medium, and long haired dogs, that’s fine. And if the earth goes into a deep-freeze, the dogs with the genes for short and medium hair all die (man cannot intervene, the dogs are left to nature), then the information for the short hair is missing. The long-haired dogs were selected to survive, however, information from the parent population has been lost.

Not necessarily, if the gene was a recessive, there is a chance it could survive.

Quote by: SeanG So goes the story of melanin. The changing populations of dark and light moths do show selection. However, this selction was not caused by birds eating them off of tree trunks.There are probably other causes for this shift, but this shift only changes existing moths and colors. Just as our eye color is already present, so is the moths.The textbooks all mention that the moths rest on trees, this is just not the case:So I agree that natural selection exists, however, this is not a cause or mechanism for evolutionary changes, which is then where the textbooks and neo-Darwinists then beg the question. I hoped this refining helped? G

The mechanism, whether by predation or other selection pressure still serves the same purpose to demonstrate how evolution as defined by change in allele frequency amongst a population works. We know there are other possible reasons why certain phenotypes are selected against, I've already cited this.

However, it seems from this paper, which I also cited earlier but you conveniently ignored, says;

The changes in the percentages of the phenotypes comprising peppered moth populations reflect changes in allele frequencies. Change in allele frequency is the very definition of evolution. Of the evolutionary forces (mutation, gene flow, drift, and selection), only selection can explain the steady direction, velocity, and magnitude of the allele frequency changes that have been observed in peppered moth populations in Britain, America, and Europe. The proximal mechanism by which the selection occurs is not without controversy (Sargent et al. 1998), but only differential predation by birds on moths that are variously conspicuous against backgrounds of different reflectance has been repeatedly supported by experiment (reviewed by Cook 2000; Grant 1999; Grant and Clarke 2000; Majerus 1998). Because reflectance from the surface of tree bark is strongly negatively correlated with atmospheric levels of suspended particles (Creed et al. 1973), the testable prediction is that melanic phenotypes should be more common in sooty, polluted regions than they are in unpolluted regions. This prediction was clearly supported in Britain by the incidence of melanism among peppered moth populations surveyed across the country during the 1950s (Kettlewell 1973), with "frequency patterns over a mosaic environment smoothed by migration" (Cook 2000).

[SlySpy]

Quote by: SeanG SlySpy, Go here: Nature of Infinity

That's all well and dandy, but what happens if you go back far enough to the beginning of time? Did something exist before time? Then that something was not extratemporal, because there was a change from an existence with no time, to one that is temporal. However, change implies time, which is a contradiction.
Did nothing exist before time? This is a very obvious contradiction: "nonexistence cannot exist."
So if time is not infinite and time has no beginning, perhaps time is circular, but the set of moments in time is growing.
Whether it is an infinite time, or a cyclic time it doesn't matter, the notion of life only begeting life is still possible as well as the other possibilities I have stated.
It is selective ignorance to assume that intelligent design and evolution are the only two possibilities.

[rez]

From the first post...

Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?” Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’” Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”

Well since the student was the last person to respond to the Professor, I guess he would be the one with the correct outlook on life and miracles. Gee, I wonder what the Professor would say to the student?

heres what I think the Professor or any other educated normal human being would say (note that I say any normal human being. You creationists/neo-cons tend to think College professors are liberal radical idiots with an agenda, so I would prefer an un-bias dialogue)

Not a retarded human being: I am forced to conclude that miracles are impossible not because I do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], but because science has disproven miracles. get your "if p then q's straight." Also student, why do you assume I do not believe anything outside of nature exists? What does my believes have to do with science?

[SeanG]

Okay Guys, Friday is my day off, so I will be able to spend some more time responding to what has already been said. We have all the time in the world, even more according to rez?? So lets backtrack a bit and clarify and recap.

If in fact there is no historical documentation whatsoever from the time-period that Haekel was not convicted of fraud by his piers, then yes, I unknowingly set up a straw man. See guys how that is done? It just takes some humility… or is that behavior not helping you guys survive?

Pooey, I am not ignoring your posts, although I prefer to read you rather than someone else. But before Friday comes, let me know if you agree with the basis of your links. That is:

• The change in frequency of alleles is proof of evolution.

I think, and I may be wrong, this is what you are saying? If “evolution” simply means change, fine, no argument.

• There is no argument that demographics can change. Creationists agree that populations can evolve. Natural selection (at least partially) explains how the percentage of light or dark moths can change in a given population.
  
  The confusion comes when someone then tries to use the term “evolution” to mean the creation of moths from non-moths. That would require brand new, fully functional genes, with previously unknown information, to arise. That is an entirely different process than merely changing the relative percentage of existing things.

In fact, I would say it raises the risk of proving evolution false. When you say if a latent gene was there, these are the so-called so-so stories that many evolutionist shy away from.

• The example used to support this is usually the story about the grey or black moths (Biston betularia) living on the bark of trees, the population adapting in colour to the colour of the bark — darker in industrial, polluted environments, and lighter in cleaner ones.
  
  The misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations are genetically poorer (fewer alleles) than the unselected natural populations from which they arose. We find the same in forest trees. In polluted environments, the surviving trees have fewer alleles than in non-polluted ones. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase.
  
  Professor Maciej Giertych,
  B.A., M.A. Oxon, Ph.D. Toronto, D.Sc. Poznan
  Polish Academy of Sciences,
  Institute of Dendrology.
  (Besides being a scientist/professor, Dr. Giertych is also a politician, member of Sejm, lower house of Polish parliament 2001-2004, Member of European Parliament since 13 June 2004.)

At any rate, I wish for you to clear up the examples you gave and what you have said so I can better respond on Friday. Thanks, SeanG.

[SlySpy]

Quote by: SeanG The confusion comes when someone then tries to use the term “evolution” to mean the creation of moths from non-moths. That would require brand new, fully functional genes, with previously unknown information, to arise.

No, because the genetic difference of that moth from the "non-moth" will be very small.
Creationists have a habit of thinking that evolution is talking about large changes that cause one species to develop into another. This is false.
It is referring to small, gradual changes over a very long period of time.