Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

[Oncedeceived]

Double post

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because sexual reproduction can occur before males and females exist separately. c elegans is a hermaphrodite that reproduces sexually in which there are occasional obligate males. sexual reproduction developed, then genders.

That doesn't provide how males and females originate.

 

[crjmurray]

This shows Christ did which was the claim:

“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)

And:

“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)

That certainly does show that Christians existed.

 

[bhsmte]

That certainly does show that Christians existed.

And that's about it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You might need to review your bible.

Okay.

Who was the last common female ancestor?

Eve was the last -- and the first.

Who was the last common male ancestor in the bible?

Adam was the last -- and the first.

(hint, there's at least one after Adam)

If that's a reference to Noah, Luke says otherwise.

 

[AV1611VET]

And what's with the all-caps? That's the online version of shouting.

No shouting intended.

I used caps, rather than bolding, italicizing, coloring, or underlining the words.

Lazy I guess!

Chill.

I'm cool!

 

[sfs]

I don't know if that is true. I think like the link in my post above, that there are two camps in the field and many do in fact believe that NS is not the driving force behind evolution.

There are plenty of camps, factions, coteries and petty rivalries in evolutionary biology. But none of them reject NS as the driving force behind adaptive evolution.

An example: I attended five talks on Friday, four at the annual retreat of the Boston Evolutionary Genomics Supergroup (great name, by the way) and one at Harvard's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. Every single one of them featured natural selection in an important way. The idea that biologists have given up on NS as an important part of evolution is pure fantasy.

 

[sfs]

I am quite surprised by your statement:
My impression is that evolutionary biology is increasingly separating into two camps, divided over just this question. On the one hand are the population geneticists and evolutionary biologists who continue to believe that selection has a ‘creative’ and crucial role in evolution and, on the other, there is a growing body of scientists (largely those who have come into evolution from molecular biology, developmental biology or developmental genetics, and microbiology) who reject it.

http://ecodevoevo.blogspot.com/2012/02/doubt-and-dogmatism-in-science.html

From the same post: "We and other biologists don't question that natural selection can occur, or that it does occur, but ask when, where, how, how strongly, and how systematically it occurs--and how we can know which is which. We ask how it works in general or in specific instances relative to other factors that can lead to differential proliferation of variation, or of the way genetic and other transmissible variation arises and works." I have yet to find a biologist who claims that adaptive evolution occurs without the action of natural selection. There is plenty of debate about how much change and how much variation represents adaptation, but none about the need for NS.

 

[sfs]

i think there is a more subtle reason.
smashing the modern synthesis destroys almost every argument evolutionist have against ID and other similar "theories".
clinging to outdated theories does absolutely nothing for the advancement of evolution, and we will never find the answers by doing so.

You think incorrectly. Those who are most critical of the Modern Synthesis are just as scornful of ID as the most hide-bound conservative in biology. The reason ID is rejected is not because of the Modern Synthesis, but because the arguments for ID are really, really bad.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That certainly does show that Christians existed.

Christ instigated the behavior of the jews. IF he didn't exist that would hardly be possible.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You think incorrectly. Those who are most critical of the Modern Synthesis are just as scornful of ID as the most hide-bound conservative in biology. The reason ID is rejected is not because of the Modern Synthesis, but because the arguments for ID are really, really bad.

Such as?

 

[Oncedeceived]

From the same post: "We and other biologists don't question that natural selection can occur, or that it does occur, but ask when, where, how, how strongly, and how systematically it occurs--and how we can know which is which. We ask how it works in general or in specific instances relative to other factors that can lead to differential proliferation of variation, or of the way genetic and other transmissible variation arises and works." I have yet to find a biologist who claims that adaptive evolution occurs without the action of natural selection. There is plenty of debate about how much change and how much variation represents adaptation, but none about the need for NS.

So? That is what we said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are plenty of camps, factions, coteries and petty rivalries in evolutionary biology. But none of them reject NS as the driving force behind adaptive evolution.

An example: I attended five talks on Friday, four at the annual retreat of the Boston Evolutionary Genomics Supergroup (great name, by the way) and one at Harvard's Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology. Every single one of them featured natural selection in an important way. The idea that biologists have given up on NS as an important part of evolution is pure fantasy.

No one made that claim.

 

[whois]

You think incorrectly. Those who are most critical of the Modern Synthesis are just as scornful of ID as the most hide-bound conservative in biology. The reason ID is rejected is not because of the Modern Synthesis, but because the arguments for ID are really, really bad.

you missed the point sfs.
i am NOT proposing that ID and similar "theories" have shred of truth.
what i AM saying is that a breakdown in the modern synthesis does 2 things:
it removes a lot of the arguement against said "theories" and gives them a foot in the door.

OTOH, why is ID and other similar "theories" bad?
don't get me wrong, i find them as ridiculous as anyone else, but since when has "ridiculous" been proof of anything?

we definitely have ourselves an interesting little dilemma here in regards to life and how it all works.
sure, mendels laws seem pretty simple in operation, but when you move into the mechanics of it all, you move from the simple to a virtual rats nest.

also, darwin does a fairly decent job with certain select groups of organisms, but when you try to integrate ALL life into this paradigm, it fails.
this is what this "new biology" is all about, to integrate ALL life, not just select groups.

a very good analogy would be newtonian physics and relativity.

 

[crjmurray]

Christ instigated the behavior of the jews. IF he didn't exist that would hardly be possible.

Really? Just, honestly...... Really?

 

[Oncedeceived]

you missed the point sfs.
i am NOT proposing that ID and similar "theories" have shred of truth.
what i AM saying is that a breakdown in the modern synthesis does 2 things:
it removes a lot of the arguement against said "theories" and gives them a foot in the door.

OTOH, why is ID and other similar "theories" bad?
don't get me wrong, i find them as ridiculous as anyone else, but since when has "ridiculous" been proof of anything?

we definitely have ourselves an interesting little dilemma here in regards to life and how it all works.
sure, mendels laws seem pretty simple in operation, but when you move into the mechanics of it all, you move from the simple to a virtual rats nest.

also, darwin does a fairly decent job with certain select groups of organisms, but when you try to integrate ALL life into this paradigm, it fails.
this is what this "new biology" is all about, to integrate ALL life, not just select groups.

a very good analogy would be newtonian physics and relativity.

Why do you find them ridiculous?

 

[whois]

Why do you find them ridiculous?

for the simple fact that i can't get my hands around them.
possibly due to a lack of understanding.
for example, there is nothing that says the laws of the trans dimensional are the same as normal space-time.
this is why i cannot totally dismiss the possibility.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Really? Just, honestly...... Really?

Fine, throw it out. The other one stands. AND:

Nero fastened the guilt ... on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of ... Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome.... TACITUS

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald ... cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy." The Talmund

Even if there was just one it would refute Jan's claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

for the simple fact that i can't get my hands around them.
possibly due to a lack of understanding.
for example, there is nothing that says the laws of the trans dimensional are the same as normal space-time.
this is why i cannot totally dismiss the possibility.

How does that address the fine tuning of the universe or the design observed in nature?

 

[whois]

How does that address the fine tuning of the universe or the design observed in nature?

i really don't buy the "fine tuning" bit.

you can use this same argument for almost ALL chemical reactions.
a very good example would be distillation of closely spaced boiling points.
alter the temp just a little bit, and you get a different product.

the apparent design bit is a little trickier, and i do not have an explanation for it.
the complexities of the living cell are simply phenomenal.
irreducible complexity is the PRIMARY REASON we do not have a theory for the origins of life.