https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.--
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious >beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public >schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school >lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the >person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It >looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
have to deny.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ … ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
--On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
proponentsists that's where they came from.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:27 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ … ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious >>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at >>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public >>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school >>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to >>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
proponentsists that's where they came from.
It's been decades since the Kitzmiller trial, but anybody who followed
it knows full well the significance of that phrase as iconic evidence
of the incestuous relationship between ID and Creationism:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI>
"it's the missing link"
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of >>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It >>> looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not >>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they >>> have to deny.
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer.
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from
mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have you researched this topic?
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent >>>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how >>>>> it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher
be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless >>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks >>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that >>>>> the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch >>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any >>>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and >>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented
no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance
itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about >>>>>> what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see >>>>>> how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher >>>>>> be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach
ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is
that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten >>>>>> any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation >>>>>> and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information
to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor
the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.
Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint;
information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
;
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the Sun
and empty space.
On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits >>>>>>> that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is >>>>>>> sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will
see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught
scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about >>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher >>>>>>> be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the >>>>>>> public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach >>>>>>> ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public >>>>>>> school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID >>>>>>> was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute
and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is
that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an
obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they >>>>>>> do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence
that they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
abruptly, geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information
to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
nor the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record
of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks
designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to
the mind.
;
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
Sun and empty space.
More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current information that exists in extant lifeforms. Photosynthesis did not
exist in the first lifeforms. Chemotrophs existed first, and it was the entropy difference between the earth and empty space that maintained the replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at that time.
Ron Okimoto
On 31/03/2024 20:50, RonO wrote:
On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the >>>>>>>> governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits >>>>>>>> that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is >>>>>>>> sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the
dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will >>>>>>>> see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught >>>>>>>> scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about >>>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, >>>>>>>> ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a
teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the >>>>>>>> public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach >>>>>>>> ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from >>>>>>>> the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public >>>>>>>> school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>> used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach >>>>>>>> the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to >>>>>>>> ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>> and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had >>>>>>>> for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on >>>>>>>> hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left >>>>>>>> after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is >>>>>>>> that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed >>>>>>>> someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went >>>>>>>> down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are >>>>>>>> still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and >>>>>>>> switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an
obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because
they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand >>>>>>>> what they
have to deny.
supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any
evidence that they can claim points to the identity of the
designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
abruptly, geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information >>>>>> to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information >>>>>> comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a
great deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
nor the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record
of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks
designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN
to the mind.
;
the source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
Sun and empty space.
More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current
information that exists in extant lifeforms. Photosynthesis did not
exist in the first lifeforms. Chemotrophs existed first, and it was
the entropy difference between the earth and empty space that
maintained the replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at
that time.
Ron Okimoto
Note that the entropy difference between the earth and empty space is in great part maintained by the entropy difference between the sun and the earth.
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean[snip]
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's been >>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that >>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian >>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to >>>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is >>>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented no
such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding >>>> Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed, so it must be"
isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't
bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come >>>> from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known exceptions.
You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,
you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
evidence of design.
Life itself is evidence of design. Why is there life? What impelled dead matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument
was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily gaps.
And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
negative evidence against unguided evolution.
Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your
poison.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known exceptions.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the composition
and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Is there empirical information
concerning life on another planet within our local galaxy?
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the composition
and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it? Is there empirical information
concerning life on another planet within our local galaxy?
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
I.e. not abruptly, but over 10 million years.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
If you want to see how complexity can arise from simplicity, look at
John Conways Game of Life.
https://experiments.withgoogle.com/conway-game-of-life
God would seem much more intelligent if he invented evolution than if he invented various life forms which then went extinct.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the >>>>>> past.Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the
composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information in
stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified Fraunhofer lines
as being due to absorption by chemical elements in stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not possess
life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.
IOW information is non-existent.
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
Your current position seems to be that information is not an inherent
property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of a creator.If Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
faked and dishonest.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the >>>>>>>> past.Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication, >>>>>>> research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no >>>>>>> known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps >>>>>> applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the
composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information in
stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified Fraunhofer
lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements in stellar
atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not
possess life.
;
;But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.IOW information is non-existent.
;
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as readingWhy can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no
justification for any claim that DNA contains information.
empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)? >>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an inherent
property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
;
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference. The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a statement
advanced by another!
So for you, information does not
require a reader,
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but
means nothing.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notby. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered,
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes
thought or intended.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or >>>>>>>>>> in theInformation is knowledge from books, observation,
past.
communication, research, experience etc.. As such it requires >>>>>>>>> mind. There are no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though
perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people would, for >>>>>>>> example, consider that stellar spectra convey information about >>>>>>>> the composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information
in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified
Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements
in stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet >>>>>>> within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not
possess life.
;
;But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.IOW information is non-existent.
;
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same asWhy can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no
justification for any claim that DNA contains information.
empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer
(God)?
Your current position seems to be that information is not an
inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer. >>>>> >
reading meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
;
The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a
statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning on my
post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, that is
that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes
information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
;So for you, information does not
require a reader,Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The
;
information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols
(information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but
means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could read it
at the time, which was the point. To be information requires sender
and receiver.
Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so if there
was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just
random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying the same
thing.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notthought or intended.
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes >>> by. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered,
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent >>>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how >>>>> it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher
be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless >>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks >>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that >>>>> the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch >>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any >>>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and >>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented
no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance
itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:46:45 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:[...]
The first meaning has information potentially be anything and theThis is only reasonable. Like a bee that locates a flower leaves a
second limits it to what some specific information-processing system
can process, but they're really in continuity with each other. An
information-processing system can only process something as information >>>> if it's information of the first type to begin with (developing an
attraction to a chemical because it benefits one to move towards the
organism that emits it only works if the chemical and the organism are >>>> effectively associated in a consistent way). And information that's of >>>> the first type but not of the second type can become information of the >>>> second type if the information-processing system changes - for example >>>> we think of the spectra of stars carrying information because we
developed the tools and knowledge to deduce things from it - before
those tools and knowledge we didn't know there was any information
there to be gleaned so we didn't, and so in a sense that information
wasn't there for us. Just like a flower's patterns in UV light
transmits information for pollinators but not for us.
trail (information) for other bees to follow. This is information.
And why couldn't that evolve?
It's worth noting that honeybees don't leave a scent trail to the
flowers they are feeding on.
Instead, honeybees have a symbolic
language which they use to communicate the direction and distance
of rich food sources to their fellow bees.
The working hypothesis
is that they do this to avoid leaving clues for competitors.
But there are many different types of bees. Some leave a more
local scent trail, seemingly as a sort of compromise between
the value of a trail and the problem of a long trail where they
can somehow get members of their team close and then the trail
can bring them to the table.
But there are some types of bees that do leave a full scent trail
from hive to flower. I haven't seen genetic studies that try to
directly link the various strategies to specific episodes of
evolution, but then I haven't really looked. Too buzzzzzy.
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that can "understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,
still information, but it's useless information. And this is a round
trip back to my original argument, that DNA contains information. And information points to a designer. If not, then the origin of RNA / DNA
and information is the $10,000,000 question.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:35:47 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[ … ]
,
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that canIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes of the >>>> observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information.
I don't have that capability, but I can easily find answers from other
people who do have the capability. Information is *content* and that
content doesn't change state just because you or I or any other
individual lack the capability to make sense of it.
"understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and
locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,
still information, but it's useless information.
Only useless to someone who doesn't understand it, the information
remains valuable just as Egyptian hieroglyphs were valuable as a
resource for learning more about Ancient Egypt.
And this is a round
trip back to my original argument,
You really need to get off that merry-go-round.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection, >resulting in better-functioning organisms.
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we >>observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors >>were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from >>this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit >>less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are >>overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the >>fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
--Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:16:46 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:11:28 -0400, Ron DeanIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes of the >>> observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:14:24 -0400, Ron DeanI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, know how >>>>> and the senses.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so if there >>>>>>> was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just >>>>>>> random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying the same thing.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it; >>>>>>>>>>>>> recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in
the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people would, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, consider that stellar spectra convey information about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information >>>>>>>>>>>> in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified >>>>>>>>>>>> Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements in
stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet >>>>>>>>>>>>> within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not >>>>>>>>>>>> possess life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
>
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't >>>>>>>>>>>> currently knowingly possess such information.
>
IOW information is non-existent.
>Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as >>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification for any claim that DNA contains information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an >>>>>>>>>>>> inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer? >>>>>>>>>>
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of a >>>>>>>>>>>> creator.If Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's >>>>>>>>>>> faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference. >>>>>>>>> The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a >>>>>>>>> statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning on my post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, that is >>>>>>>> that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes >>>>>>>> information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
>
So for you, information does not
require a reader,>
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The >>>>>>>>> information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it >>>>>>>>> mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols >>>>>>>>> (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but >>>>>>>>> means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could read it >>>>>>>> at the time, which was the point. To be information requires sender >>>>>>>> and receiver.
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information when >>>>>> they were first used, stopped being information during the period when >>>>>> nobody understood them but became information again when they were >>>>>> deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some
capacity.
All very interesting but I'd really like you to clarify whether using
that understanding of information, you think that Egyptian hieroglyphs >>>> went from being information to not being information, back to being
information. It's a yes or no question.
It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
My question is about *your* definition, not anyone else's
I'm glad you emphasised "for _me_" as this is the same problem that
runs right through your arguments for ID - you base them, on how
things appear to *you*, the only way in which *you* can make sense of
them. You seem to place an inordinate level of knowledge and judgement
on yourself rather than people who are more qualified and experienced
than you are. That's a standard definition of Dunning-Kruger.
As I've pointed before, I'm and engineer when I observe design I
recognize it. But I also realize that design can also be explained by evolution (mutations and natural selection), which I think is an
alternative way to view design. I'm convinced that after reading Wm.
Paley, who used design as evidence of God. Darwin set out to "rewrite"
Paley with the purpose of eliminating God.
on one's paradigm which reigns supreme over everything and overrides
belief, opinion, observation, empirical evidence and fact.
interpretation is designed to force whatever is known or discovered to
fit within one's paradigm. Even arguing that there is no obvious
design, design is an illusion (Dawkins) in biology, we must remind
ourselves that what we see is not design but evolution (Crick), This I
think is nothing more than self-serving.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613001726
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701072104
https://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/01/04/natural-theology-paley-and-darwin/
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that can "understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,Since, you have the capacity, to read and understand them, they do
contain information for you. And I can only _trust_ that you have that
capability.
I don't have that capability, but I can easily find answers from other
people who do have the capability. Information is *content* and that
content doesn't change state just because you or I or any other
individual lack the capability to make sense of it.
still information, but it's useless information. And this is a round
trip back to my original argument, that DNA contains information. And information points to a designer. If not, then the origin of RNA / DNA
and information is the $10,000,000 question.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notby. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered, >>>>>>>>> thought or intended.
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>> perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors
were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from
this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>> themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit
less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>> the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>> such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>> your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in >number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely >optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
likely than changes that are beneficial.
--
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there >>>> is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>>> perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors >>>> were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from >>>> this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>> themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit >>>> less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>>> the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>>> such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>>> your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I disagree. Beneficial mutations are rare, far more so than harmful
ones. The evidence is that mental and physical diseases and defects
resulting from defective genetics are far more often _observed_ than
mental or physical betterment, enrichment or improvement we see
resulting from beneficial mutations. You almost never observe any that
can be attributed to beneficial mutations.
I would not be surprised if neutral mutations outstripped both the
beneficial or the harmful ones. I would think though that any change in
the coded information no matter how small would be a informational
change that could over time gradually_add_up_ one way or the other, more likely than not, towards the degeneration.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanThings change, new and better designs things just go downhill because of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
That doesn't say much for the intelligence of your designer. How long
would a designer with that failure rate survive in your industry?
the second law. There is in companies a deliberate "fail rate" so new products to sell.
With the DNA coded information due to mutations (which are real) become increasingly less perfect when passed down to their offspring the
defective genes are always down to the offspring never reversed; with
the passage of time, the genome may just become so overburden with
defective genetics - bad mutations that failure to reproduce becomes inevitable. Maybe there is a loss of sexual drive, or instinct, all of
which is expressed by genetics. As a species age, perhaps like human
males species reach an age when sex desire dies and offsprings cannot
happen.
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and animals do change.
On 14/04/2024 01:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appearedI disagree. Beneficial mutations are rare, far more so than harmful
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather >>>>> there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
ones. The evidence is that mental and physical diseases and defects
resulting from defective genetics are far more often _observed_ than
mental or physical betterment, enrichment or improvement we see
resulting from beneficial mutations. You almost never observe any that
can be attributed to beneficial mutations.
I would not be surprised if neutral mutations outstripped both the
beneficial or the harmful ones. I would think though that any change in
the coded information no matter how small would be a informational
change that could over time gradually_add_up_ one way or the other, more
likely than not, towards the degeneration.
OK. Now imagine we add a process - one that get rids of harmful
mutations every generation, preventing them from adding up, and
amplifies the beneficial mutations, increasing their odds of reaching >fixation far beyond their base frequency and therefore allowing them to
add up (because once a mutation has reached fixation every subsequent >mutation gets added to it regardless, there is no "what are the odds of
these two mutations occurring together" issue)
Two separate questions: 1) what would the resulting informational change
be? and 2) is such a process possible, and if not why not?
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern
eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example, there's
no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed since
their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately think
modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are
unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single
cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
No, I'm not claiming anything.
I don't really know. But I thought was
the arrangenent of eukaryotic cells that constitute molecules, proteins, bodies, organs etc. And that different molecules come from different arrangements of these cells. I realize that cells age and decline,
cancer cells are changed. But species that remain in _stasis_ for
millions of years even hundreds of millions of years, their body staying vertually the same over this time span, why would their eukaryotic cells
have changed? These are what's called living fossils, I question the eukaryotic cells that make up their bodies have undergone any
evolutionary changed since their body forms remain static and this as determined from fossils. And there are other things that cause me to
doubt these cells change which I can get into if interested.
Examples from Wikipedia:
Some living fossils are taxa that were known from palaeontological
fossils before living representatives were discovered. The most famous examples of this are:
Coelacanthiform fishes (2 species)
Metasequoia, the dawn redwood discovered in a remote Chinese valley (1 species)
Glypheoid lobsters (2 species)
Mymarommatid wasps (10 species)
Eomeropid scorpionflies (1 species)
Jurodid beetles (1 species)
Soft sea urchins (59 species)
All the above include taxa that originally were described as fossils but
now are known to include still-extant species.
Other examples of living fossils are single living species that have no
close living relatives, but are survivors of large and widespread groups
in the fossil record.
Wikipedia list perhaps a hundred examples living fossils and there's
probably more!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example,
there's no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip
cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed since
their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its
origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" is
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below
that information comes *only* from "a mind".
The highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the subject
of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in the living
cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The next
year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and physics
was virtually just mathematics.
On 16/04/2024 09:20, Arkalen wrote:
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
Point of pedantry. The usage of the term organelle is not uniform, and ribosomes are sometimes considered organelles.
The first sentence of WikiPedia's lede is "In cell biology, an
organelle is a specialized subunit, usually within a cell, that has a specific function." (I don't know why the usually is there, but maybe
it is to include pili and flagellar whips). That definition then can be narrowed first to membrane bounded compartments, and then to
compartments with their own DNA.
Ron Dean was not so much wrong as imprecise.
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes
proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
And this has been done experimentally. See the literature on expanded
genetic codes, and especially on chimeric tRNAs.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would read
a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to bind
to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the amino
acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about phenotype
is the physical consequences of which proteins get made, when and in
what number.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make proteins:
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This means
each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where a bit of
RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way until
it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends, resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would read
a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to bind to
a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the amino acid
chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about phenotype is
the physical consequences of which proteins get made, when and in what number.
On 16/04/2024 09:20, Arkalen wrote:
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
Point of pedantry. The usage of the term organelle is not uniform, and ribosomes are sometimes considered organelles. The first sentence of WikiPedia's lede is "In cell biology, an organelle is a specialized
subunit, usually within a cell, that has a specific function." (I don't
know why the usually is there, but maybe it is to include pili and
flagellar whips). That definition then can be narrowed first to membrane bounded compartments, and then to compartments with their own DNA.
Ron Dean was not so much wrong as imprecise.
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
And this has been done experimentally. See the literature on expanded
genetic codes, and especially on chimeric tRNAs.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would
read a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to
bind to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the
amino acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about
phenotype is the physical consequences of which proteins get made,
when and in what number.
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading is
my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on You
Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very disturbing,
I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and watch the video
and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
On 16/04/2024 08:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading
is my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on
You Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very
disturbing, I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and
watch the video and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
Since you failed to characterise the video I had a look at a trailer to
get some idea of the context. That baldly states "There is no evidence
for Darwinian evolution. It is not scientific."
Why would you find a video pushing that position "very disturbing"? I
would have thought you would find it comforting (unless you thought it
made religion and intelligent design look bad).
On 16/04/2024 08:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading
is my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on
You Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very
disturbing, I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and
watch the video and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
Since you failed to characterise the video I had a look at a trailer to
get some idea of the context. That baldly states "There is no evidence
for Darwinian evolution. It is not scientific."
Why would you find a video pushing that position "very disturbing"? I
would have thought you would find it comforting (unless you thought it
made religion and intelligent design look bad).
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately think
modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are
unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single
cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
No, I'm not claiming anything. I don't really know. But I thought was
the arrangenent of eukaryotic cells that constitute molecules, proteins, bodies, organs etc.
And that different molecules come from different
arrangements of these cells.
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and animals do change.
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
;
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The
next year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career. However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:43:28 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:35:47 -0400, Ron DeanSo you say. You and numerous others have made this claim, it's always
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:16:46 -0400, Ron DeanAs I've pointed before, I'm and engineer when I observe design I
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:I'm glad you emphasised "for _me_" as this is the same problem that >>>>>> runs right through your arguments for ID - you base them, on how
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:11:28 -0400, Ron DeanIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes >>>>>>> of the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:14:24 -0400, Ron DeanI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, >>>>>>>>> know how
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so >>>>>>>>>>> if there
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:>
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now or in
the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are
no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would, for
example, consider that stellar spectra convey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information about
the composition and physical conditions of stellar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements in
stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
possess life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
currently knowingly possess such information.>
IOW information is non-existent.
>Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification for any claim that DNA contains information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your >>>>>>>>>>>>> inference.
The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning >>>>>>>>>>>> on my post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, >>>>>>>>>>>> that is
that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes >>>>>>>>>>>> information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, >>>>>>>>>>>> it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
>
So for you, information does not
require a reader,>
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer. The
information is there whether its ever read or not. But what >>>>>>>>>>>>> does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols >>>>>>>>>>>>> (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be >>>>>>>>>>>>> present, but
means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could >>>>>>>>>>>> read it
at the time, which was the point. To be information requires >>>>>>>>>>>> sender
and receiver.
was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just >>>>>>>>>>> random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying >>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information when >>>>>>>>>> they were first used, stopped being information during the >>>>>>>>>> period when
nobody understood them but became information again when they were >>>>>>>>>> deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
and the senses.
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some >>>>>>>>> capacity.
All very interesting but I'd really like you to clarify whether using >>>>>>>> that understanding of information, you think that Egyptian
hieroglyphs
went from being information to not being information, back to being >>>>>>>> information. It's a yes or no question.
It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
My question is about *your* definition, not anyone else's
observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information. >>>>>>
things appear to *you*, the only way in which *you* can make sense of >>>>>> them. You seem to place an inordinate level of knowledge and judgement >>>>>> on yourself rather than people who are more qualified and experienced >>>>>> than you are. That's a standard definition of Dunning-Kruger.
recognize it. But I also realize that design can also be explained by >>>>> evolution (mutations and natural selection), which I think is an
alternative way to view design. I'm convinced that after reading Wm. >>>>> Paley, who used design as evidence of God. Darwin set out to "rewrite" >>>>> Paley with the purpose of eliminating God.
That's a perfect example of what I was talking about. Various people
here who are far more knowledgeable about Darwin than you have
repeatedly told you that Darwin did not "set out" to do any such thing >>>> and they have provided solid evidence to back that up.
the same, people more knowledgeable about Darwin, has disproved my
opinion about Darwin. Well I've been waiting on this solid evidence I
keep reading about. By contrast, I have pointed to evidence which I
think supports my view. A few excerpt from Wikipedia provides thumbnail
sketches demonstrating what is known about the Paley - Darwin
connection. Of course I think this supports what I think.
Thumbnail for William Paley
William Paley
Charles Darwin, as a student of theology, was required to read it when
he did his undergraduate studies at Christ's College, but it was Paley's >>> Natural...
24 KB (2,907 words) - 03:55, 3 April 2024
Thumbnail for Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin
exams drew near, Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
_delighted_ by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity (1795)...
162 KB (15,880 words) - 14:19, 28 March 2024
Watchmaker analogy (redirect from Paley's Argument)
being.[citation needed] When Darwin completed his studies of theology at >>> Christ's College, Cambridge in 1831, he read Paley's Natural Theology
and believed...
34 KB (4,687 words) - 09:31, 3 April 2024
Charles Darwin's education
away at Greek and Latin, and studied William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity, becoming so _delighted_ with Paley's logic that he
_learnet_ it well. This was...
97 KB (12,223 words) - 23:45, 11 December 2023
Thumbnail for Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity
Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity >>> responded to such ideas by referencing Paley's book. The main thrust of
William Paley's argument in Natural Theology is that God's design of the >>> whole creation...
Thumbnail for On the Origin of Species
On the Origin of Species
of extinction, which he explained by local catastrophes, followed by
re-population of the affected areas by other species. In Britain,
William Paley's...
164 KB (18,812 words) - 22:02, 10 April 2024
Inception of Darwin's theory
clergyman, Darwin became passionate about beetle collecting, then shone
in John Stevens Henslow's botany course. He was convinced by Paley's
Natural Theology...
90 KB (11,427 words) - 00:18, 27 December 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+William+Paley%27s+books+read+by+darwin&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=bbmiuvsui8nulbpha03hh76wr
Are you seriously claiming that that list of books and articles
supports your claim that Darwin *set out* to overturn Paley, even when
the second link says "Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity"?
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
;
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The
next year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career. However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would
read a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to
bind to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the
amino acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about
phenotype is the physical consequences of which proteins get made,
when and in what number.
HTH.
You insulted me earlier, and I felt that I didn't need these insults
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:23:54 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The next >>>> year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular
importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career.
However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This means >>> each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how DNA is
replicated and also the first step of protein translation where a bit of >>> RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way until >>> it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the
pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt
appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion.
You seem hung up on this and the fact that all current life forms have
come from those that first appeared in the Cambrian.
I'm curious as to how your Intelligent Designer fits into this. ISTM
that according to your logic, he/she/it spent around 10 million years creating what you earlier described as a "myriad" of individual
lifeforms but didn't bother creating any new ones for next 500 million
years or so, just occasionally tweaking the relatively few ones that
didn't go extinct. Is that a fair summary of your thinking?
This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into
existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also
reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
[ … ]
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
Arkalen wrote:
What is this about?
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:03:03 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 00:25:20 -0400, Ron Dean
So, you agree - I fell out of my chair I was so shocked!
With the DNA coded information due to mutations (which are real) become >>>> increasingly less perfect when passed down to their offspring the
defective genes are always down to the offspring never reversed; with
the passage of time, the genome may just become so overburden with
defective genetics - bad mutations that failure to reproduce becomes
inevitable. Maybe there is a loss of sexual drive, or instinct, all of >>>> which is expressed by genetics. As a species age, perhaps like human
males species reach an age when sex desire dies and offsprings cannot
happen.
Where does your intelligent designer fit into that process?
No one's agreeing with you, Ron. They're just asking you a question
about your beliefs.
If you go back
in tine to one's grandparents their genome had fewer deleterious
mutations than ours: going backwards generation after generation after
generation, the genome of each preceding generation had ever fewer
harmful mutations,
Cite?
By going back say to the earliest members of their
kind (family)
Your use of the word "kind" ties you historically to the young earth creationists (Seventh-day Adventist Frank Lewis Marsh came up with it,
if memory serves). Is that something you're comfortable with?
their genome must have been far closer to perfect than any
decedent generations. From then, each succeeding generation the
deleterious mutations multiplied.
Unless they're eliminated by natural selection.
I think possibly the proofreading and
repair, which was an elegantly and highly sophisticated design set up
for the best results, but over the vast spans of time even the P&R
mechanisms, which initially were perfect,
This is a religious belief, not a science-based claim.
but with the passage of time
even the P&R became less perfect due to bad mutations that slipped
passed the P&R mechanisms, consequent the P&R systems were affected. The
results we see today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanThings change, new and better designs things just go downhill because of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
That doesn't say much for the intelligence of your designer. How long
would a designer with that failure rate survive in your industry?
the second law. There is in companies a deliberate "fail rate" so new products to sell.
The fossil record is overwhelmed with the extinction of species 99% that
ever lived are extinct, this is empirical evidence that the vast
majority of copies, contrary to theory of survival of the fittest, disappeared from the face of earth. The fossil record depicts species appearing abruptly in the fossil record, remaining in stasis during
their tenure on the planet then suddenly disappearing.
(Gould & Eldredge). Stasis was observed with little variability, I
suspect the DNA of each species
during it's period of stasis, its variability was becoming increasing imperfect of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became unfit to survive.
FromTheRafters wrote:
LDagget laid this down on his screen :As I've argued information has to contain, meaning, program, data
Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information whenI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, know
they were first used, stopped being information during the period when >>>>> nobody understood them but became information again when they were
deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
;
how and the senses.
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some
capacity. It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
Interesting that you lump information, data, knowledge, program,
language, know how and the senses apparently synonyms.
In formal treatments, data, information, and knowledge are treated
as very distinct things.
The simplest way to illustrate is probably to use a computer example.
Data can be thought of as the bits on a computer hard drive.
Simplistically,
you count the capacity in bits and that's how much data you have.
Information is a different thing. A disk where every bit is a 0 has
information that is essentially reducible to 0,N where N is the
capacity of the hard drive. or 0 N time. A disk full of 1s has the
same amount of information, but it's different.
This continues with the ability to repeat information as one might
do with certain schemes to protect data in various RAID storage
schemes. The data is still the disk size, the information is recorded
redundantly.
This should be somewhat natural to you. You claim DNA has information
but there are identical copies of DNA in billions of cells. I don't
think you believe that an egg developing into an adult is creating
information (I would quibble, but save that).
Enough for starters. Data is not the same as information. That's
not how the words are used by people who study information.
Right, he seems to think that information is not information until it
is communicated.
know-how knowledge.
Information seems to have shifty definitions.
But I think information has to have understandable meaning for the observer.
You can observe written language in Russian, or Japanese or German. If
you cannot read the language then for _you_ it contains _no_ information.
But if it's not understood by you then it's meaningless.
I have a book on my shelf that remains unread by me. Nevertheless it
contains information.
I coded a message see if you can read the information it contains I'm convened it could make you rich:
if you cannot, it's not information.
bi cbn nale zov rjci
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:43:28 -0400, Ron DeanYou "put me down" by your statement that I have produced _no_ evidence _whatsoever_ to support my claims......". It;s no big jump to conclude
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+William+Paley%27s+books+read+by+darwin&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=bbmiuvsui8nulbpha03hh76wr
Are you seriously claiming that that list of books and articles
supports your claim that Darwin *set out* to overturn Paley, even when
the second link says "Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity"?
from the connection of Darwin with Paley's use of design to support
belief in a Divine being and Darwin _after_ studying Paley and being _delighted_by Paley's language and logic...
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-04-14 21:39:21 +0000, Ernest Major said:Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately
think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms
are unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period.
single cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I suppose you've never heard of cancer? Or if you have heard of it you
don't know what it is?
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different classification
of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic cells
come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
Overview of cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fV9RWgVoI
This video comes across as an educated guess going from step by step in
a few really broad leaps in which the considerable complexity of the
cell or the inter-workings of the cell is not covered.
This video is a _overview_ of the complexity of a eukaryotic cell.
Conplexity and inner workings of internal organelles etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx5NqbI9uTM
Structure and function:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-NCfvTtIE
I believe due to the complexity of these cells, it takes faith to accept
that it's all the results of mindless, blind random mutations and
natural selection.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example,
there's no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip
cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed
since their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its
origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different classification
of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic cells
come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
On 4/7/24 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
bi cbn nale zov rjci
Ten bytes of information, probably compressible to 8 or so. I doubt it
has any meaning at all.
On 20/04/2024 00:43, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-04-14 21:39:21 +0000, Ernest Major said:Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they
first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once
they appeared had any significant change or evolution. I
definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living
organisms are unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian
period. single cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I suppose you've never heard of cancer? Or if you have heard of it
you don't know what it is?
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain
eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different
classification of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic
cells come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the
combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
Overview of cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fV9RWgVoI
I think this potential explanation is much better: https://youtu.be/PhPrirmk8F4?feature=shared&t=2060
Mainly because in that model, most of the unique and pervasive features
of eukaryotic cells can be traced back to a single cause, which accounts
for them being unique and pervasive.
Over time everything declines due to wear, tear and decimation of
energy. Consequently, immortality is impossibility.
The universe is under-girted and controlled by laws, order and
constants, consequently it can be understood and described via
mathematics. This fact, eliminates an accidental, aimless, blind
mindless random origin for the universe. Even stars run out of energy
and cease over time, the Universe, itself is destined to become a dead
cold mass--
There is no cause for a universe, and no explanation for the result we observe. - What brought about the big bang and from what- from nothing"
From nothing, nothing comes. The fact is - no one knows. And to answer
your question, immortality would violate the laws of physics.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:46:43 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:16:59 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way it is. You observe it everywhere you look. Everything
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
It seems that after the task was completed it said "It is done". and
left things with the capacity and ability to take care of itself. It
seems that the designer left the scene. Over time and the 2ND law
everything enters into downward tends, copying errors occur, things tend >>>> to disintegrate and inevitably things move towards dissolution and
decay.
That doesn't fit into an ID paradigm, to go through the trouble to
start life and then leave it to inevitably disintegrate.
grows, matures, then starts to decline til death. Including you and me.
Our bodies die but if we have children, our DNA survives.
As I stated a patch died. That's just the way it is. In fact every
I had some beautiful pine trees in my
acreage. But a patch died, collapsed and are in a process of decay. This >>>> is typical. The same will happen to our bodies.
That's because they died. Apparently you still don't understand the
difference between life and death.
living thing will die.
As far as knowing the difference between life and death. That's a
idiotic charge. I've lost some very special family members through death. >>> --
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:22:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-25 07:35:04 +0000, Martin Harran said:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:46:43 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:Our bodies die but if we have children, our DNA survives.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:16:59 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way it is. You observe it everywhere you look. Everything
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
It seems that after the task was completed it said "It is done". and >>>>>> left things with the capacity and ability to take care of itself. It >>>>>> seems that the designer left the scene. Over time and the 2ND law
everything enters into downward tends, copying errors occur, things tend >>>>>> to disintegrate and inevitably things move towards dissolution and >>>>>> decay.
That doesn't fit into an ID paradigm, to go through the trouble to
start life and then leave it to inevitably disintegrate.
grows, matures, then starts to decline til death. Including you and me. >>>
Up to a point, though not if we consider Y chromosomes or mitochondrial
DNA. My (paternal paternal) greatgrandfather had six sons and six
daughters, and has about 105 descendants alive today. I'm the only one
who has his Y chromosome, and when I die there will be no one. (I have
three daughters but no sons.)
Is it not likely, however, that virtually all your great-grandfather's
DNA is distributed among his descendants?
And now I'm being nosy - how did you find out that you are the only
one with his Y chromosome?
If I'm intruding on personal stuff, just
ignore me.
As I stated a patch died. That's just the way it is. In fact every
I had some beautiful pine trees in my
acreage. But a patch died, collapsed and are in a process of decay. This >>>>>> is typical. The same will happen to our bodies.
That's because they died. Apparently you still don't understand the >>>>> difference between life and death.
living thing will die.
As far as knowing the difference between life and death. That's a
idiotic charge. I've lost some very special family members through death. >>>>> --
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example
in Siberia.
On 4/26/24 7:28 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:I fear that Ron D's lack of knowledge of the fossil record,
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of
deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example
in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or are
you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species biota is
the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has been
generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at times of
mass extinction).
evolutionary biology and genetics
precludes his having any coherent idea of how the living world came to be.
On 4/26/24 8:48 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 4/26/24 7:28 AM, Ernest Major wrote:It's remotely possible that by attempting to answer questions he can be
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:I fear that Ron D's lack of knowledge of the fossil record,
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate
of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for
example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or are
you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species biota is
the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has
been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at
times of mass extinction).
evolutionary biology and genetics precludes his having any coherent
idea of how the living world came to be.
led to realize that.
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase
rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit >>>>>>> than the preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time
the genes of a species become less and less incapable of
reproduction or species survival. This could account for many of >>>>>>> 99%+ of of all species that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of >>>>>>> course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter
meteor striking the Earth. Also changing weather the coming and
going of ice ages; as well massive volcano eruptions accounts
for extinction of many species for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or
are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species
biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record
is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity
has been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks
at times of mass extinction).
I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's presented due to time and
my present concerns and interest. I'm not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended or supported West Virginia Creationism. But
rather intelligent design has been my interest for decades.
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm back. I got some bad news from my 6 months physical examine, and
Ernest Major wrote:Ernest had just made an attempt, above, to get the thread going
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:This thread is going nowhere and I've some pressing issues I have to
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate
of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the >>>>> preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of
a species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species
that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs
became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth.
Also changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well
massive volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species
for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or
are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species
biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has
been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at
times of mass extinction).
deal with. So, hopefully I'll be back soon.
somewhere, and your response is to bail? This says something about
you, and it's not good.
spent a few days in the hospital. I've had some health issues, but this latest diagnoses is the same condition that took my father's life. It's
very concerning an depressing.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known about
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase >>>>>>>>> rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit >>>>>>>>> than the preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time >>>>>>>>> the genes of a species become less and less incapable of
reproduction or species survival. This could account for many >>>>>>>>> of 99%+ of of all species that ever lived that have gone
extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile >>>>>>>>> diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also changing weather the >>>>>>>>> coming and going of ice ages; as well massive volcano
eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example >>>>>>>>> in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your >>>>>>>> Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? >>>>>>>> Or are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot)
species biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion >>>>>>>> species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil
record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species >>>>>>>> diversity has been generally increasing over time (though with >>>>>>>> big setbacks at times of mass extinction).
snip
;I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, challenges
and issues. I cannot address every comment that's presented due to
time and my present concerns and interest. I'm not so sure of just
how important anything I see on TO is to me, right now especially
this thread. I never intentionally defended or supported West
Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent design has been my
interest for decades.
To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate material.
The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The context is the
claims you've made about the natural world.
origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of highly
complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the natural world
has ever equaled or come close to such information. If the present is
key to the past, then there is no exception; highly complex information
comes _only_ from a mind. Without information - there is no life.
John Harshman wrote:
On 5/2/24 4:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 5/2/24 7:39 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The Cambrian explosion was not just an explosion of 30+/- body plans,
Ernest Major wrote:You contradict yourself. If nothing except life has ever displayed
On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes less fit than the preceding generation, so in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> passing spans of time the genes of a species become less >>>>>>>>>>>>> and less incapable of reproduction or species survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs >>>>>>>>>>>>> became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth. Also changing weather the coming and going of ice >>>>>>>>>>>>> ages; as well massive volcano eruptions accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction of many species for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which >>>>>>>>>>>> your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species >>>>>>>>>>>> de novo? Or are you claiming that the current 10 million >>>>>>>>>>>> (+/- a lot) species biota is the remnant of a much richer >>>>>>>>>>>> biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil >>>>>>>>>>>> record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) >>>>>>>>>>>> species diversity has been generally increasing over time >>>>>>>>>>>> (though with big setbacks at times of mass extinction). >>>>>>>>>>>>
snip
;I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions,
challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's
presented due to time and my present concerns and interest. I'm
not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, >>>>>>> right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended >>>>>>> or supported West Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent
design has been my interest for decades.
To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate
material. The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The
context is the claims you've made about the natural world.
about origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of
highly complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the
natural world has ever equaled or come close to such information.
If the present is key to the past, then there is no exception;
highly complex information comes _only_ from a mind. Without
information - there is no life.
complex information, the inference would be that highly complex
information comes from life, not from "a mind", whatever you might
mean by that. Further, all the minds we know of are living beings,
and they descend from less complex living beings in the past. It
appears, then, that complexity arises from evolution.
;
but also an explosion of information needed for each body plan. Where
did this information come from? No one knows how DNA structure arose
which is designed to store information and control development of
living organisms. Evolution, of course. The be all and end all
explanation.
How do you know there was an explosion of information?
Do you know anything regarding Pre- Cambrian genetic information?
And what's your alternative source for this information?
I've very recently concluded, based primarily on the reality of the
infusion of genetic information into the planet, where none existed
before, there must be a God. I've seen no empirical evidence falsifying
the existence of God. So, atheism is a faith.
Again, you said that only life shows such compleity, which means that
life must be the source.
Of course, Pasteur is credited with the evidence demonstrating that life comes only from life. And if the present is the key to the past, then
this demonstrates that the first living cell came from earlier life. IE
the Living God, who, "breathed the breath of life into man an man became
a living soul".
( Don't know the source of this, but I heard this expression numerous
times - But I have my suspicions) You can believe or disbelieve, but you
have _no_ better explanation!
If
minds are the source, minds are living, and so must themselves have a
source. Do you see how you have locked yourself into an infinite
regression here?
No, I have not! I personally think there's somethings we are capable of arriving knowledge about, and at there;s some things that is beyond our ability to gain knowledge. For example: today we live in a universe that exist, but our universe_had_ a beginning almost 14KKK years ago. We can observe and know the effect, but not the cause. Who or what caused the universe to begin, or why is beyond any observation or our capacity to
know and this is to say nothing regarding the utterly fantastic amount
of energy locked within the universe where there was none. Again we have
no way to know! OF coerce we can hypothesis and theorize to our heart's content, but our best minds cannot create energy from nothing.
Ever heard the term the eternal God? Guess not!
Of course a mind is quite complex. So where did the mind you think
is responsible for all that come from? Is it minds all the way down?
??
What do you think of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Scientific_Dissent_from_Darwinism
Yes, in fact there is. Give people their freedom of choice but don'tSo it didn't turn out that well for him. Why?Because of free will. Had we been born robots with out a will or
thinking mind our lives totally controlled by unwavering instinct, would
this have been better? Is there another option?
be so extremist about it that you allow people to hurt others -- it's
the foundation of the criminal justice system, in fact.
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteinsinthehumanbodyeachmadeupofaspecificorderofaminoacids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that
there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene,
on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or the
case against evolution and especially the impossibility of the origin of
life from inorganic, dead chemistry.
There are over 500 known amino acids know in nature, but all living
organisms are made up of only 20 different amino acids. What what was
the odds of this happening without deliberate choice? And all are left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have
been right-hand. This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino
acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
but no 0ne knows. Each protein is expressed by a particular order or arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a
Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that
there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene,
on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
On 5/8/24 3:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteinsinthehumanbodyeachmadeupofaspecificorderofaminoacids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that
there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene, >>> on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
In that case, "1 million" would be a much, much more severe
underestimate. He's better off with the first claim.
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 millionThat's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that
proteinsinthehumanbodyeachmadeupofaspecificorderofaminoacids. >>
there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene,
on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
On 2024-05-08 22:55:45 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteinsinthehumanbodyeachmadeupofaspecificorderofaminoacids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that
there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene, >>> on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
I did notice that, but it could be just a typo. I sometimes leave out >important words (most seriously "not") in what I write.
On Thu, 9 May 2024 10:21:07 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>:
On 2024-05-08 22:55:45 +0000, Bob Casanova said:Possibly; we all do typos and misstatements. Or it could be
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteinsinthehumanbodyeachmadeupofaspecificorderofaminoacids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that >>>> there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each gene, >>>> on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
I did notice that, but it could be just a typo. I sometimes leave out
important words (most seriously "not") in what I write.
yet another example of his problems expressing himself
clearly. Either way, that number is wrong, either way too
high or ridiculously too low.
On 5/9/24 4:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:Where do you get this insane number?
On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:01:30 -0700, the following appeared inI really wasn't clear. But I would have thought that, by "each
talk.origins, posted by John Harshman
<john.harshman@gmail.com>:
On 5/8/24 12:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:Note the absence of the word "different" in his assertion.
What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids.
That's certainly incredible. Where did you get that figure? Given that >>>> there are around 20,000 protein-coding genes, that means that each
gene,
on the average, produces around 50 different proteins.
(protein) made up of _specific_ order of amino acids." That would have
implied, each of the 1 kkk different protein.
Vincent Haycock wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron DeanAround the same time,
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:47:15 -0400, Ron DeanOf course crackpots exist. However, calling them crackpots because they
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 23:53:05 -0400, Ron DeanYou called them crackpots.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
You call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educated >>>>>>> with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what >>>>>>> are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including >>>>>>> scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias.I understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but >>>>>>>>> honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses. >>>>>>>>No, there's nothing to explain away. There will always be crackpots >>>>>>>> amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science.
No, a PhD is not a license to believe in nonsense, although some
people act like it is. You've made the error of argument from
authority here, since even PhDs can easily get things wrong.
So do you believe that crackpots exist, or are all claims to
scientific validity equally worthwhile, in your view??
offer a different point-of-view from one's own view is protective and
self-serving.
I call them crackpots because they're out of step with mainstream
science without adequate grounds to be that way -- not because they
offer a different point of view from my own.
I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or theThis is they way any contrary evidence to
scientific theories IE evolution or abiogenesis is dismissed without >>>>> knowing or understanding anything about the case they bring against
evolution. When one relies strictly on on sided information and based on >>>>> this, they are in no position to pass judgement. It's exactly parallel >>>>> to a case where the Judge hears the prosecution, then pronounces I've >>>>> heard enough - _guilty_! I strongly suspect this describes you knowing >>>>> nothing about actual ID or the information
Okay, why don't you fill me in about what I'm "missing" in the field
of information science as it relates to Intelligent Design?
case against evolution and especially the impossibility
You don't know that.
of life from inorganic, dead chemistry. There are over 500 known amino acids
know in nature, but all living organisms are made up of only 20 different amino acids.
What what was the odds of this happening without deliberate choice?
It's just the number of amino acids that happened to be in the
earliest genetic code, obviously. If there were 25 amino acids in
living things, you'd ask the same question.
And all are
left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have
been right-hand.
This was probably the result of a "frozen accident," where the
earliest life forms were left-handed by chance, and all their
descendants were also as a result of that.
This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino
acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
but no 0ne knows.
So you agree that Intelligent Design is not known to be the answer to
these kind of questions?
Each protein is expressed by a particular order orObviously, the proteins didn't poof into existence all at once. You
arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a
Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
The number would be greater than the number of atoms (10^80) in the
known universe. What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids. >>
would start out with something that only vaguely resembles the protein
you're concerned with, and then natural selection will turn it into
that protein over time by removing what doesn't resemble the target
protein and retaining what does.
Really? What turned you against both creationism or intelligent design?What do you offered by IDest pointing put
the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think you know
anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution.
No, I used to be a creationist and I'm quite familiar with their
arguments.
I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
version of science with nothing to support it.
I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.> >>>>>>>>>So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing abouteither the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that matter. ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm. IOW the
paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see
evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points
to the identity of the designer. One may believe based upon faith the
the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha or some other Deity but this
is belief
Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others much younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was
challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also
thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a
coincidence.
How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did
into the subject? If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
supporting evidence to support his ideas.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against >>> religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him >>> on the loss of his daughter.
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die? Is it better than
my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
died)
or a disease which caused her death.
I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended
from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine
and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other animals. So,
as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any
other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a
YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog,
that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"?
As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their
dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value
than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the
human race.
Ron Dean wrote:
Vincent Haycock wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron DeanAround the same time,
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:47:15 -0400, Ron DeanOf course crackpots exist. However, calling them crackpots because they >>>> offer a different point-of-view from one's own view is protective and
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 23:53:05 -0400, Ron DeanYou called them crackpots.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
No, a PhD is not a license to believe in nonsense, although some >>>>>>> people act like it is. You've made the error of argument fromYou call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educatedI understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but >>>>>>>>>> honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses. >>>>>>>>>No, there's nothing to explain away. There will always be crackpots >>>>>>>>> amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science. >>>>>>>>>
with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what
are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including
scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias. >>>>>>>
authority here, since even PhDs can easily get things wrong.
So do you believe that crackpots exist, or are all claims to
scientific validity equally worthwhile, in your view??
self-serving.
I call them crackpots because they're out of step with mainstream
science without adequate grounds to be that way -- not because they
offer a different point of view from my own.
I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or theThis is they way any contrary evidence to
scientific theories IE evolution or abiogenesis is dismissed without >>>>>> knowing or understanding anything about the case they bring against >>>>>> evolution. When one relies strictly on on sided information and based on >>>>>> this, they are in no position to pass judgement. It's exactly parallel >>>>>> to a case where the Judge hears the prosecution, then pronounces I've >>>>>> heard enough - _guilty_! I strongly suspect this describes you knowing >>>>>> nothing about actual ID or the information
Okay, why don't you fill me in about what I'm "missing" in the field >>>>> of information science as it relates to Intelligent Design?
case against evolution and especially the impossibility
You don't know that.
of life from inorganic, dead chemistry. There are over 500 known amino acids
know in nature, but all living organisms are made up of only 20
different amino acids.
What what was the odds of this happening without deliberate choice?
It's just the number of amino acids that happened to be in the
earliest genetic code, obviously. If there were 25 amino acids in
living things, you'd ask the same question.
And all are
left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have >>>> been right-hand.
This was probably the result of a "frozen accident," where the
earliest life forms were left-handed by chance, and all their
descendants were also as a result of that.
This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino >>>> acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
but no 0ne knows.
So you agree that Intelligent Design is not known to be the answer to
these kind of questions?
Each protein is expressed by a particular order or
arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a >>>> Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
The number would be greater than the number of atoms (10^80) in the
known universe. What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million >>>> proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids.
Obviously, the proteins didn't poof into existence all at once. You
would start out with something that only vaguely resembles the protein
you're concerned with, and then natural selection will turn it into
that protein over time by removing what doesn't resemble the target
protein and retaining what does.
I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology andReally? What turned you against both creationism or intelligent design? >>>What do you offered by IDest pointing putNo, I used to be a creationist and I'm quite familiar with their
the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think you know
anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution. >>>>>
arguments.
paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
version of science with nothing to support it.
I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.> >>>>>>>>>>So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing abouteither the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that
matter. ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design
rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm. IOW the
paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see
evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points
to the identity of the designer. One may believe based upon faith the
the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha or some other Deity but this
is belief
Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others much
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was
challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also >>>> thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a
coincidence.
How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did
into the subject? If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
supporting evidence to support his ideas.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally >>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against >>>> religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him >>>> on the loss of his daughter.
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die? Is it better than
my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
died)
younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
or a disease which caused her death.
I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended
from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses,
swine and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other
animals. So, as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or
value than any other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from
a moral standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked
in a YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your
dog, that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you
save"? As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save
their dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no
more value than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is
leading the human race.
That is utter garbage on so many levels it's difficult to know where to start.
First, the argument works just as much for creationism. After
all, in most creationist accounts, the God(s) design all animals
including humans. So you could just as well say "we were designed by a
common designer along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine and
dogs. Consequently, we are just designed things the same as other
animals. So, as designed things in every respect we are of no more
worth or value than any other stuff the designer designed".
In fact, your opening gambit is directly expressed in the Bible: Judges
10:16 or Ecclesiastes 3:19: "For what happens to the children of man and
what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other.
They all have the same breath"
so a much stronger commitment to "identity" than you find in
evolution.
That whether one accepts evolution or believes in a designer makes
no difference especially for YOUR designer. After all you claim (not
that anybody believes you at this point) that the only thing the
designer did was to meddle a bit with DNA and organic chemistry a few billion years ago and gave all living things the same code, and things
like flagella to us and bacteria alike - and then disappeared. In fact,
you made the ubiquity and early appearanceof body plans in the
Cambrian your main evidence. So from this it would follow that as far
as the designer is concerned, we are indeed the same as, and not more valuable than, bacteria,
or maybe Brachiopods such as craniidas today.
Your nonsense also contradicts the historical record. Ideas
such as the University Declaration of human rights, the equality
and dignity of all humans etc are decidedly ideas of modernity, when creationist thoughts were in decline. Go back just
a few decades before Darwin and look eg at the legal process, the still frequent use of torture, the death
penalty for minor thefts etc etc, Or the atrocities committed as a
matter of course during wars- the international rules of armed conflict
again coming on the scene only after creationist ideas were in decline.
Oh, and of course the slave-holding South, creationism
central even then, trained dogs to hunt and kill
humans (well, their human property) which gives you
a clear idea of what life they valued more.
Conversely, people having strong emotional attachments
to their pets is documented long before modernity. A
Roman emperor had a servant who injured his dog brutally
killed, and in the early 17th century, we read e.g. that
Sir Roger de Coverley, was praised for his loyalty to
his servants like this: "They had all grown old with him, from
his grey-headed butler to ‘the old House-dog, and . . . a grey Pad
that is kept in the Stable with great Care and Tenderness out of regard
to his past Services, tho’ he has been useless for several Years’"
So for the writer, a human servant and a service dog and
horse are pretty much treated in the same breath, their status was due
to the servant role that they shared.
The watershed moment, if there was any, was the ate 17th, and
18th century in Europe, when "social pets" became more common,
animals valued for their social bonds rather tha n their usefulness,
and that again is centuries before Darwin. (cf.eg.
The history of emotional attachment to animals by Ingrid Traut,
The Routledge Companion to Animal-Human History, 2018)
Are there any ethical implications of common descent?
I doubt it, though maybe in the margins, a slightly more pronounced
tendency to be in favour of animal rights and
against vivisection, But even this is ambivalent,
There was a really interesting historical dialectic between Darwin,
and Christian conceptions of animal souls, played out in the vivisection debate in Victoria Britain. The Darwinian notion of the relatedness of
all life had given a boost to the anti-vivisectionists, and
observing that Darwinian arguments had success where religious ones had
had less let religion based anti-vivisectionists like Hull revive
theological arguments about animal souls.
Vincent Haycock wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron DeanAround the same time,
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:47:15 -0400, Ron DeanOf course crackpots exist. However, calling them crackpots because they
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 23:53:05 -0400, Ron DeanYou called them crackpots.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
You call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educated >>>>>>> with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what >>>>>>> are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including >>>>>>> scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias.I understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but >>>>>>>>> honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses. >>>>>>>>No, there's nothing to explain away. There will always be crackpots >>>>>>>> amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science.
No, a PhD is not a license to believe in nonsense, although some
people act like it is. You've made the error of argument from
authority here, since even PhDs can easily get things wrong.
So do you believe that crackpots exist, or are all claims to
scientific validity equally worthwhile, in your view??
offer a different point-of-view from one's own view is protective and
self-serving.
I call them crackpots because they're out of step with mainstream
science without adequate grounds to be that way -- not because they
offer a different point of view from my own.
I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or theThis is they way any contrary evidence to
scientific theories IE evolution or abiogenesis is dismissed without >>>>> knowing or understanding anything about the case they bring against
evolution. When one relies strictly on on sided information and based on >>>>> this, they are in no position to pass judgement. It's exactly parallel >>>>> to a case where the Judge hears the prosecution, then pronounces I've >>>>> heard enough - _guilty_! I strongly suspect this describes you knowing >>>>> nothing about actual ID or the information
Okay, why don't you fill me in about what I'm "missing" in the field
of information science as it relates to Intelligent Design?
case against evolution and especially the impossibility
You don't know that.
of life from inorganic, dead chemistry. There are over 500 known amino acids
know in nature, but all living organisms are made up of only 20 different amino acids.
What what was the odds of this happening without deliberate choice?
It's just the number of amino acids that happened to be in the
earliest genetic code, obviously. If there were 25 amino acids in
living things, you'd ask the same question.
And all are
left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have
been right-hand.
This was probably the result of a "frozen accident," where the
earliest life forms were left-handed by chance, and all their
descendants were also as a result of that.
This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino
acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
but no 0ne knows.
So you agree that Intelligent Design is not known to be the answer to
these kind of questions?
Each protein is expressed by a particular order orObviously, the proteins didn't poof into existence all at once. You
arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a
Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
The number would be greater than the number of atoms (10^80) in the
known universe. What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million
proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids. >>
would start out with something that only vaguely resembles the protein
you're concerned with, and then natural selection will turn it into
that protein over time by removing what doesn't resemble the target
protein and retaining what does.
Really? What turned you against both creationism or intelligent design?What do you offered by IDest pointing put
the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think you know
anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution.
No, I used to be a creationist and I'm quite familiar with their
arguments.
I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology and
paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon
version of science with nothing to support it.
I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.> >>>>>>>>>So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found
positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing abouteither the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that matter. ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm. IOW the
paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see
evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points
to the identity of the designer. One may believe based upon faith the
the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha or some other Deity but this
is belief
Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others much younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was
challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also
thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a
coincidence.
How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did
into the subject? If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
supporting evidence to support his ideas.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against >>> religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him >>> on the loss of his daughter.
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die? Is it better than
my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing
in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or
died)
or a disease which caused her death.
I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended
from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine
and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other animals. So,
as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any
other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a
YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog,
that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"?
As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their
dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value
than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the
human race.
[ … ]
On the issue of human vs animals and their value, from evolution
vs creation perspectives, here a story of India, where even the
rumor of having eaten beef can get you killed,
and no, Darwin
most certainly is not to blame: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65229522
On 2024-05-10 09:18:47 +0000, Burkhard said:
[ … ]
On the issue of human vs animals and their value, from evolution
vs creation perspectives, here a story of India, where even the
rumor of having eaten beef can get you killed,
In some areas, maybe, but not everywhere. In Bangalore (Karnataka, South India) I was told that eating beef from animals that had died from road accidents was OK.
and no, Darwin
most certainly is not to blame:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-65229522
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:17:50 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>:
On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:No, I don't; sorry. I only (vaguely) recall that being from
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather >>>>> there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in
number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely
optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
likely than changes that are beneficial.
several comments here, some by people (unlike myself)
qualified by training to make such a statement. As I recall
it, the comments were to the effect of "About 98% of
mutations are neutral, with the balance fairly evenly split
between beneficial and harmful". Your point is well-taken,
however, and it's something I never considered. I suppose it
depends on just how optimized the system is *in a particular
environment*, and how the environment is changing, since I'd
guess few mutations are inherently either beneficial or
harmful.
On 13/04/2024 19:26, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 13 Apr 2024 16:17:50 +0200, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>:
On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:No, I don't; sorry. I only (vaguely) recall that being from
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather >>>>>> there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection, >>>>> resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in
number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely >>> optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
likely than changes that are beneficial.
several comments here, some by people (unlike myself)
qualified by training to make such a statement. As I recall
it, the comments were to the effect of "About 98% of
mutations are neutral, with the balance fairly evenly split
between beneficial and harmful". Your point is well-taken,
however, and it's something I never considered. I suppose it
depends on just how optimized the system is *in a particular
environment*, and how the environment is changing, since I'd
guess few mutations are inherently either beneficial or
harmful.
A propos of nothing I just ran into this paper which seems to speak to
the question:
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/168/4/1817/6059315
I think it confirms the idea that beneficial mutations are less frequent
than deleterious ones; the thrust of the paper is that beneficial
mutations are more frequent than usually thought but that still works
out to under 10% for most of the numbers it actually gives. There is one >exception which I wonder might be the source of the commenters you >remembered, where apparently one paper found the half-and-half
distribution you describe in a mutation-accumulation experiment in >Arabidopsis Thaliana.
The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North. What
about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built ships for
the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely mentioned in
history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed on
the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as a
issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It was
raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested in
entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then made a
moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Darwin stated, "The civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the
same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be exterminated.
The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man
in a more civilized state, as we may hope . . . the Caucasian, and some
ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/darwin-and-the-descent-of-morality
Conversely, people having strong emotional attachmentsWho do you think anyone approves of such as this today. Do you think is
to their pets is documented long before modernity. A
Roman emperor had a servant who injured his dog brutally
killed, and in the early 17th century, we read e.g. that
Sir Roger de Coverley, was praised for his loyalty to
his servants like this: "They had all grown old with him, from
his grey-headed butler to ‘the old House-dog, and . . . a grey Pad
that is kept in the Stable with great Care and Tenderness out of
regard to his past Services, tho’ he has been useless for several Years’"
So for the writer, a human servant and a service dog and
horse are pretty much treated in the same breath, their status was due
to the servant role that they shared.
The watershed moment, if there was any, was the ate 17th, and
18th century in Europe, when "social pets" became more common,
animals valued for their social bonds rather tha n their usefulness,
and that again is centuries before Darwin. (cf.eg.
The history of emotional attachment to animals by Ingrid Traut,
The Routledge Companion to Animal-Human History, 2018)
Are there any ethical implications of common descent?
I doubt it, though maybe in the margins, a slightly more pronounced
tendency to be in favour of animal rights and
against vivisection, But even this is ambivalent,
There was a really interesting historical dialectic between Darwin,
and Christian conceptions of animal souls, played out in the vivisection
debate in Victoria Britain. The Darwinian notion of the relatedness of
all life had given a boost to the anti-vivisectionists, and
observing that Darwinian arguments had success where religious ones had
had less let religion based anti-vivisectionists like Hull revive
theological arguments about animal souls.
was ever justified by the general population. But it's the result of
power. Lord Acton once remarked "that power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." This I think probably explains much
of man's inhumanity to man both in the past and today. Unfortunately, we
see this in our world today and in recent history.
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed
on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as
a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It
was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested
in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then
made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had
outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished.
But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after
gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a
single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and
viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a
fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert
(idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery.
And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international
slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri
Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was
Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called
"Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
All of this, by the way, was covered in high school history class - in Canada.
I wonder where Mr Dean went to school?
William Hyde
On 5/10/24 7:52 PM, Chris Thompson wrote:
Not surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
It's worse than that. He said "two years after the start", not before.
That is, he's referring to the Emancipation Proclamation, probably.
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed
on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as
a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It
was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested
in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then
made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had
outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished.
But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after
gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a
single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and
viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a
fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert
(idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery.
And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international
slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri
Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was
Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called
"Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
All of this, by the way, was covered in high school history class - in Canada.
I wonder where Mr Dean went to school?
William Hyde
On 5/12/24 1:24 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 11/05/2024 21:15, William Hyde wrote:I too am beginning to suspect trolling. He's much more sophisticated
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
major snip
The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors. >>>>> Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact
slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of
the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an >>>>> interested in entering into the war on the side of the South.
Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which
earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished.
But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after
gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a
single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and
viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather
a fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert
(idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery.
And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international
slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri
Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was
Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state. >>>>
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called
"Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
All of this, by the way, was covered in high school history class - in
Canada.
I wonder where Mr Dean went to school?
Posts like the above make me wonder whether Mr. Dean is trolling (and
knows better), but he might have attended a Southern US segregation
academy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_academy
William Hyde
than some other trolls we know, but the repetitive nature of his >"contributions" is obvious.
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed
on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as
a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It
was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested
in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then
made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had
outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished.
But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after
gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a
single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and
viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a
fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert
(idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery.
And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international
slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri
Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was
Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called
"Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are
seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens- the
Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent inferiority
of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. Northerners
were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured goods for
trading and Northern merchants traded with native people for slaves. It
was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most
African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had life,
nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met except for
WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
< https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
Chris.
;Darwin stated, "The civilized races of man will almost certainly
exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the
same time the anthropomorphous apes . . . will no doubt be
exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope . . .
the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at
present between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2001/11/darwin-and-the-descent-of-morality
Conversely, people having strong emotional attachmentsWho do you think anyone approves of such as this today. Do you think
to their pets is documented long before modernity. A
Roman emperor had a servant who injured his dog brutally
killed, and in the early 17th century, we read e.g. that
Sir Roger de Coverley, was praised for his loyalty to
his servants like this: "They had all grown old with him, from
his grey-headed butler to ‘the old House-dog, and . . . a grey Pad
that is kept in the Stable with great Care and Tenderness out of
regard to his past Services, tho’ he has been useless for several
Years’"
So for the writer, a human servant and a service dog and
horse are pretty much treated in the same breath, their status was
due to the servant role that they shared.
The watershed moment, if there was any, was the ate 17th, and
18th century in Europe, when "social pets" became more common,
animals valued for their social bonds rather tha n their usefulness,
and that again is centuries before Darwin. (cf.eg.
The history of emotional attachment to animals by Ingrid Traut,
The Routledge Companion to Animal-Human History, 2018)
Are there any ethical implications of common descent?
I doubt it, though maybe in the margins, a slightly more pronounced
tendency to be in favour of animal rights and
against vivisection, But even this is ambivalent,
There was a really interesting historical dialectic between Darwin,
and Christian conceptions of animal souls, played out in the
vivisection
debate in Victoria Britain. The Darwinian notion of the relatedness of >>>> all life had given a boost to the anti-vivisectionists, and
observing that Darwinian arguments had success where religious ones had >>>> had less let religion based anti-vivisectionists like Hull revive
theological arguments about animal souls.
is was ever justified by the general population. But it's the result
of power. Lord Acton once remarked "that power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely." This I think probably explains
much of man's inhumanity to man both in the past and today.
Unfortunately, we see this in our world today and in recent history.
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the
victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact
slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of
the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed
an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South.
Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which
earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be
no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from
fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before
the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a
sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a
resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be
banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result
was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free
state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are
seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens-
the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent
inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to
their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured
goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people
for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading
the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern
merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This
also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was
raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm
proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which
otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had
life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met
except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have
control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that
happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for
your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you
read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly
with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected
firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this
misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in
doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary
secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a
racist and an apologist for slavers.
You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they sink
to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing and
character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt is
you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have nothing more
to do with you, a false accuser!
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Tue, 7 May 2024 22:47:15 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Mon, 6 May 2024 23:53:05 -0400, Ron DeanYou called them crackpots.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:<snip>
On Mon, 6 May 2024 15:29:30 -0400, Ron Dean
You call them crackpots, but as I pointed out they are just as educated >>>>> with the same credentials as mainstream scientist. The question is what >>>>> are your credentials to pass judgement on these intellectuals including >>>>> scientist holding PhDs. Probably nothing more than extreme bias.I understand the obsession to "explain away" these deserters, but >>>>>>> honesty over bias needs to be the ruling objective not excuses.
No, there's nothing to explain away. There will always be crackpots >>>>>> amidst the more reasonable background of mainstream science.
No, a PhD is not a license to believe in nonsense, although some
people act like it is. You've made the error of argument from
authority here, since even PhDs can easily get things wrong.
So do you believe that crackpots exist, or are all claims to
scientific validity equally worthwhile, in your view??
Of course crackpots exist. However, calling them crackpots because they
offer a different point-of-view from one's own view is protective and self-serving.
This is they way any contrary evidence to
scientific theories IE evolution or abiogenesis is dismissed without
knowing or understanding anything about the case they bring against
evolution. When one relies strictly on on sided information and based on >>> this, they are in no position to pass judgement. It's exactly parallel
to a case where the Judge hears the prosecution, then pronounces I've
heard enough - _guilty_! I strongly suspect this describes you knowing
nothing about actual ID or the information
Okay, why don't you fill me in about what I'm "missing" in the field
of information science as it relates to Intelligent Design?
I don't know that you are familiar with anything ID proposes, or the
case against evolution and especially the impossibility of the origin of
life from inorganic, dead chemistry.
There are over 500 known amino acids know in nature, but all living
organisms are made up of only 20 different amino acids. What what was
the odds of this happening without deliberate choice? And all are left-handed, but if they were the result of blind chance, purposeless
and aimless natural processes about half of the amino acids should have
been right-hand. This is not the case. Exactly what was the selection
process that selected this particular set of 20 out of 500 known amino
acids? Of course there are educated guesses, hypothesis and theories,
but no 0ne knows. Each protein is expressed by a particular order or arrangement of amino acids. The smallest protein known, the saliva of a
Gila minster is 20 amino acids. What are the odds of these 20 amino
acids having the correct sequence on just one protein by chance?
The number would be greater than the number of atoms (10^80) in the
known universe. What is so incredible is that there is about 1 million proteins in the human body each made up of a specific order of amino acids.
What do you offered by IDest pointing put
the fallacies in abiogenesis or evolution. If you think you know
anything regarding this, it's no doubt from proponent of evolution.
No, I used to be a creationist and I'm quite familiar with their
arguments.
Really? What turned you against both creationism or intelligent design?
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to
discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a coincidence.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
on the loss of his daughter.
True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North. >>>>>> What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who
built ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is
rarely mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by
the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact >>>>>> slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of
the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed
an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South.
Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which >>>>>> earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list
of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be
no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from
fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before
the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a
sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a
resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be
banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result
was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a
free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north
and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they
are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens-
the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent
inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to
their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured
goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people
for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading
the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern
merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This
also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother
was raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that
I'm proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which
otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had
life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met
except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have
control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that
happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As
for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did
you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched
evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically
connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited
this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition,
yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an
ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause
historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty
reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a
racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing and
character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt is
you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have nothing
more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the Civil
War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of
1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that tariffs were the primary cause
of the Civil War. I brought up the Articles of Secession of every one of
the rebel states, all of which list slavery as the reason they seceded.
I also brought up the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the
CSA, in which he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not exist.
That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of racist
revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer that you are
the once with no evidence, and you are going into your little anger
routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still wrong about everything)
and the garbage you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be wondering
what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of me.
Chris
snip
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Haycock wrote:<snip>
I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology andAround the same time,
paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon >>>>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found >>>>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of
negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
No, that's backward.
became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
I said "because of my reading of geology and paleontology."
Ok, thanks for clearing that up.
I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution andID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping >>>> stone to atheism per se). And of course, as I said, I found negative
evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it
was cartoon-like.
The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing abouteither the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that >>>>> matter.
Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for
me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
subscribed to.
Right, but that's how we were taught when I was growing up. My
comment was supposed to be historical, not normative.
There is a difference between Creationism and intelligent design, in
that ID does not subscribe to the Genesis narrative, Both YEC Old Earth creationism does. However, both creationism and ID both point to the
same apparent flaws in Evolution and observe the same empirical evidence.
This is an example of interpretation to fit into a paradigm.ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design >>>>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm.
How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in
phylogenetic studies of living things?
So fit it in to your paradigm, then. Why would the Designer create
such an over-arching and ubiquitous phenomenon that is precisely what
we would expect from evolution?
This is a excellent example of the point I've been making nested
hierarchies have been mutually seen as strong empirical evidence for
either Evolution or ID. The concept was was first conceived by a
Christian who thought that an intelligent God would arrange animals and plants etc in an orderly harmonic, systematic, logical and rational
manor: and this he set out to find. This man was a Swedish scientist,
Carolus Linnaeus. He organized organisms into groups which was known at
the time and he characterized organisms into boxes within boxes within
boxes IE groups. His nested hierarchies are incomplete by today
standard, But the concept was his, which he saw as evidence of his God.
So, it appears the concept was appropriated by evolutionist from a
creation concept.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/pre-1800/nested-hierarchies-the-order-of-nature-carolus-linnaeus/
A common designer I think is an even better explanation to the
observation of commonality and relationship than descent from a common ancestor. This is exactly what one would expect from an engineer. It
takes trust and faith to accept common ancestor, and descent. If you
look at the drawings you generally see big cats in the same family or
sub family. You see these Lions, tigers, Jaguars leopards, but each
specie observed is at the node or end of missing connecting link in the living or fossil record. And this is the case of almost everything we
observe from the fossil record
for most animal species, according to the Late Stephen Gould and Niles Eldredge. So, looking at a nested hierarchies what you see is isolated species, but very few links. And the few links that are pointed to in
the fossil record are, in reality based on evolutionary theory. I'm sure
you are aware of
what Darwin said about the scarcity of intermediate links. How much
better off are we today with the many new species at the end of their
nodes that Darwin knew nothing about.
You as an atheist would naturally turn to evolution, since God in your
mind does not exist. Atheism like theism is a personal belief. But to no small degree each of us establishes our paradigm, and we defend it as
best we can. I respect your views and I certainly have no desire to push
my view on you.
And so did Darwin. Why would you think that the designer should be an on >>> scene manager constantly controlling everything minute by minute. TheIOW the
paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see
evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points >>>>> to the identity of the designer.
Do you think you might be able to identify him/her/it if you tried
harder, scientifically?
One may believe based upon faith the
the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha or some other Deity but this >>>>> is belief
Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others much >>>>> younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather >>>>> or a disease which caused her death.
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was >>>>>>> challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also >>>>>>> thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to >>>>>>> discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a >>>>>>> coincidence.
How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did >>>>>> into the subject? If he was just "mad at God" you would think he
would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
supporting evidence to support his ideas.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a >>>>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the >>>>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally >>>>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
on the loss of his daughter.
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die? Is it better than >>>>>> my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing >>>>>> in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or >>>>>> died)
But why would God allow that? I consider this to be positive evidence >>>> in favor of atheism.
fact is, it did not, instead it chose to permit reproduction by
organisms themselves rather than create each species individualy. It
designed the genetic code and the information needed, as well a multiple >>> edit and repair machines to correct copy errors and mutations in the
DNA. It infused almost all of the first complex modern complex animal
phyla during the Cambrian. It created a universe beginning with then big >>> bang, a universe of natural order, patterns and logic, evidenced by the
fact that mathematics is able to describe this universe it's physical
laws, constants many of the actions we observe Indeed Math cam explain
what is observed. This is not a condition of blind, aimless mindless
random activities.
None of that is an explanation for why God would allow Annie to die.
Or are you even a Christian to begin with? Perhaps I should've
started with that.
I think I have Christian values, but I don't attend religion services.
And I don't pray. So, where does that leave me?
<I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended >>>> >from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, swine >>>>> and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other animals. So, >>>>> as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any >>>>> other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a >>>>> YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog, >>>>> that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"? >>>>> As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their >>>>> dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value >>>>> than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the >>>>> human race.
No comment! I'm not surprised.
I didn't reply to this because I thought some of the other posters had
addressed it by the time of my post.
True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the
North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers >>>>>>> who built ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This
is rarely mentioned in history. And of course, history is written >>>>>>> by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In
fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the
start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great
Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the side >>>>>>> of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred >>>>>>> Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list
of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be >>>>>> no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from
fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time
before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all
of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention
a resolution was passed that the international slave trade would
be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the
result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine
as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at
all familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the
Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions
between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and
the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years >>>>>> before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they
are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens-
the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their >>>>>> ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent
inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to
their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and
manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with
native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to
Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought
slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3)
gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most African-
Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung.
Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of
my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not have
had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in
Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not
have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever
have met except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't
always have control over the events that happened, and often
tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As
for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did
you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched
evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically
connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly
exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic
recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its
role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost
Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty
reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're
a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing and
character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt is
you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have nothing
more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the Civil
War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of
1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- all years before
the start of the Civil War. You claimed that tariffs were the primary
cause of the Civil War. I brought up the Articles of Secession of
every one of the rebel states, all of which list slavery as the reason
they seceded. I also brought up the Cornerstone Speech by the
vice-president of the CSA, in which he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not
exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and deny
slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of racist
revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer that you
are the once with no evidence, and you are going into your little
anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you refuse to
address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still wrong about
everything) and the garbage you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be
wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the abolitionist
"am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was published
in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors. >>>> Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed
on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as
a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It
was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested
in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then
made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had
outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished.
But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after
gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a
single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and
viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a
fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert
(idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery.
And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international
slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri
Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was
Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called
"Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are
seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens- the
Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent inferiority
of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to their lot as slaves. >>>
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. Northerners
were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured goods for
trading and Northern merchants traded with native people for slaves. It
was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading the continent for
slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my
ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most
African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung.
Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of my
ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had life,
nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met except for
WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have control over the
events that happened, and often tragedies that happen can have positive
outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history, and even
if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for
your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected
firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this misstep
in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so
also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary
secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing right
at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a
racist and an apologist for slavers.
Chris
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the
North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers >>>>>>>> who built ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This >>>>>>>> is rarely mentioned in history. And of course, history is
written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In
fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the
start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great
Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the
side of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which
deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list >>>>>>> of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would
be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from >>>>>>> fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time
before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all >>>>>>> of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention >>>>>>> a resolution was passed that the international slave trade would >>>>>>> be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the
result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine >>>>>>> as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered >>>>>>> between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at
all familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the
Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions
between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and
the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not >>>>>>> surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two
years before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's >>>>>>> unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they >>>>>>> are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens- >>>>>>> the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of
their ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent >>>>>>> inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to >>>>>>> their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and
manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with
native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to
Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought
slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3)
gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most African-
Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung.
Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of >>>>>> my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not
have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in
Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not
have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever >>>>>> have met except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't
always have control over the events that happened, and often
tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As
for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did
you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched
evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and >>>>> Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically
connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly
exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic
recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from
its role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of
Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty
reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're >>>>> a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing
and character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt
is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have
nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the
Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the
Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- all
years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that tariffs
were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the Articles of
Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of which list slavery
as the reason they seceded. I also brought up the Cornerstone Speech
by the vice-president of the CSA, in which he clearly states the same
thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not
exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and
deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of
racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer
that you are the once with no evidence, and you are going into your
little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you
refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still
wrong about everything) and the garbage you spew is racist
revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be
wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the abolitionist
"am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was
published in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the slave
trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery years before
the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as Dean trotted out
the fact that slavery was at one time legal in northern states, too. A
more pathetic example of tu quoque is difficult to find.
Chris
[ … ]
Generally, Linnaeus SO doesn't work for you, on pretty much every
level. First, he grouped humans among the apes,these among quadrupeds,
and these in animalia. Yes, that worried him from a theological
perspective, but when attacked for it, he was adamant that that was
just what the data showed. He challenged his critics to find one
objective fact that would allow them to distinguish humans from other
apes (Carl Linnaeus to Johann Georg Gmelin, letter 25 February 1747) So
going back
to your nonsense about the alleged moral implications of nesting humans
among other animal groups, Linneaus did this long before Darwin.
Oh, and as we are at it, unlike Darwin he also introduced subcategories (albeit as variations, not species) for humans, and not only that, he
ranked them. So Black africans according to his schema were:
from their temperament phlegmatic and lazy, biologically having dark hair, with many twisting braids; silky skin; flat nose; swollen lips; Women
with elongated labia; breasts lactating profusely and from their
character Sly, sluggish, and neglectful. White people by contrast were by temperament sanguine and strong, biologically with plenty of yellow
hair; blue eyes, and from their character light, wise, and inventors
etc.
Modern scientific racism has its origins here rather than in Darwin.
Now, did he as you claim consider the nested hierarchies as evidence for
God? Not quite, though that is an easy mistake to make for modern
readers, who look at him through Paleyan lenses. But he didn't, and the reasons are interesting. He was not a natural theologian in the Paleyan
mold, and the inference does not run from: "we observe nested
hierarchies, these are what we should expect from God's design,
therefore God" The
problem with this inference was always that it is inconsistent with
God's omnipotence - God could have created differently had he so
chosen, which means we can't use His contingent choice as evidence for anything.
What Linnaeus does is reasoning in the other direction. He takes God's existence and the fact that he is the Creator as a given - no further evidence is needed or wanted. But by seeing order in his creation, we
are seeing beauty, it lifts us up and also makes the world intelligible
to
us. So we should be grateful for, and maybe moved by the way he
created, but that is very different from "believing more" - it is an aesthetic, not
an epistemological response. For the ToE this is very different. We know
that descent with modification will always create nested hierarchies, we
can model this on computers, and observe it also in e.g. printing
errors in book printing. So unlike God, evolution HAS to create nested hierarchies, which then makes the observation of them suitable evidence.
Or with other words, the concept of "God" has no explanatory function
in Linneaus theory, and that is part of the reason why it was so easy
to simply
adapt it to evolutionary thinking, it only needed a new coat of paint
OK, and now let's move on to this theory. He did indeed, at least initially, fully embrace species fixism. However, and rather counterintuitively, he
also embraced gradualism. In fact, the often-cited Latin form of the principle, "Natura non facit saltus" comes from him - though the idea
is older, and was
an Axiom e.g. in Leibniz' work. Ultimalty, it too goes back to
Aristotle, and there we find the reason why Linneaus also extended his
schema to rocks and minerals:
"Nature proceeds little by little from things lifeless to animal life
in such a way that it is impossible to determine the exact line of
demarcation, nor on which side thereof an intermediate form should lie.
Thus, next after lifeless things in the upward scale comes the plant,
and of plants one will differ from another as to its amount of apparent vitality; and, in a word, the whole genus of plants, whilst it is
devoid of life as compared with an animal, is endowed with life as
compared with other corporeal entities. Indeed, as we just remarked,
there is observed in plants a continuous scale of ascent towards the
animal."
So, God created all species at once, and in a fixed state, AND in a
finaley gradiated way so that we can trace their "ancestry" (scare
quote, they are not earlier in time, only in God's thought - from
his perspective they are "one", in the way a lake is one: just with
different depth, getting gradually deeper as one gets to the centre).
Now what are the implications of this? Well, according to Linnaeus
we SHOULD indeed find rabbits in the Cambrian, and not just rabbits,
but elephants, whales and indeed humans. So a bit of a problem right
there. But there is one thing we MUST NOT find in his model, and that
is "sudden appearances". A) because everything happened at the same
time, so no one species appears before the other, and B) because
nature makes no leaps, so for each animal we should be able
to trace its "ancestry" back, gradually and wihtout inerruption, to
rocks. Now, according to your mangled version of Gould, what we in fact "observee is just the opposite: sudden appearances, and no
gradual progression. With ohter words if your "theory" , i.e. your
disfigured Gouldian punktuated equilibrium, were true, then linneaus
would definitly be false, his theory is much , much more incompatible
with sudden appearances than Darwin's. So you'll have to make up your
mind which nonsense you want to peddle, your misunderstanding of Gould
or your misunderstanding of Linneaus.
One final point, and that is another big problem for you. Linnaeus did
indeed START as a species fixist. However, he also found more and more evidence that that picture was irreconcilable with the facts. A
watershed moment was for him was the discovery of a variant of
the common toad-flax (Linaria vulgaris L.). The plant, had four
more spurs than the common toad-flax, and yet was clearly produced by
these. That violated his idea that genera and species hwere the result
of one single act of original creation, unchanged ever since. He was
so shocked by the finding that he called the newly found plant
'Peloria', i.e. 'monster'.
Quite a bot of his late work was dedicated to come up with new theoories
that explained Peloria, and all the other examples that kept popping
up. He wasn't happy with either of them, and while he continued
to write about this, he dropped any reference to species fixism from
his book on taxonomy, realising, correctly, that his taxonomy
was independent from his theory of creation. Another reason why using
the system was straightforward also for Darwin and his followers,
Linnaeus himself had realised that a) the data did not suport fixism
and b) his classification did not depend on it. (for details see eg. Gustafsson, Åke. "Linnaeus' peloria: the history of a monster."
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 54 (1979): 241-248)
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/pre-1800/nested-hierarchies-the-order-of-nature-carolus-linnaeus/
A common designer I think is an even better explanation to the
observation of commonality and relationship than descent from a common
ancestor. This is exactly what one would expect from an engineer. It
takes trust and faith to accept common ancestor, and descent. If you
look at the drawings you generally see big cats in the same family or
sub family. You see these Lions, tigers, Jaguars leopards, but each
specie observed is at the node or end of missing connecting link in the
living or fossil record. And this is the case of almost everything we
observe from the fossil record
for most animal species, according to the Late Stephen Gould and Niles
Eldredge. So, looking at a nested hierarchies what you see is isolated
species, but very few links. And the few links that are pointed to in
the fossil record are, in reality based on evolutionary theory. I'm
sure you are aware of
what Darwin said about the scarcity of intermediate links. How much
better off are we today with the many new species at the end of their
nodes that Darwin knew nothing about.
You as an atheist would naturally turn to evolution, since God in your
mind does not exist. Atheism like theism is a personal belief. But to
no small degree each of us establishes our paradigm, and we defend it
as best we can. I respect your views and I certainly have no desire to
push my view on you.
I think I have Christian values, but I don't attend religion services.And so did Darwin. Why would you think that the designer should be an on >>>> scene manager constantly controlling everything minute by minute. TheIOW the
paradigm rules. Now to clear up another situation. While IDest see >>>>>> evidence which supports design, there is no known evidence which points >>>>>> to the identity of the designer.
Do you think you might be able to identify him/her/it if you tried
harder, scientifically?
One may believe based upon faith the
the designer is Jehovah, Allah or Buddha or some other Deity but this >>>>>> is belief
Everyone dies, including you and me. Some much older and others much >>>>>> younger. Annie didn't have to die, but she was exposed the the weather >>>>>> or a disease which caused her death.
At one time I was also an evolutionist. In addition to a book I was >>>>>>>> challenged to read, and to some extinct, what I discussed above I also >>>>>>>> thought that after reading Paley, Darwin dedicated his effort to >>>>>>>> discounting or disproving Paley's God. This seemed to be more than a >>>>>>>> coincidence.
How do you square that with the enormous amount of research he did >>>>>>> into the subject? If he was just "mad at God" you would think he >>>>>>> would have published immediately with only a scant amount of
supporting evidence to support his ideas.
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a >>>>>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the >>>>>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally >>>>>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed. One could certainly sympathize with him
on the loss of his daughter.
What's your explanation for why Annie had to die? Is it better than >>>>>>> my explanation? (which is that there is no reason she died -- nothing >>>>>>> in the universe is out there to care whether she lived, suffered, or >>>>>>> died)
But why would God allow that? I consider this to be positive evidence >>>>> in favor of atheism.
fact is, it did not, instead it chose to permit reproduction by
organisms themselves rather than create each species individualy. It
designed the genetic code and the information needed, as well a multiple >>>> edit and repair machines to correct copy errors and mutations in the
DNA. It infused almost all of the first complex modern complex animal
phyla during the Cambrian. It created a universe beginning with then big >>>> bang, a universe of natural order, patterns and logic, evidenced by the >>>> fact that mathematics is able to describe this universe it's physical
laws, constants many of the actions we observe Indeed Math cam explain >>>> what is observed. This is not a condition of blind, aimless mindless
random activities.
None of that is an explanation for why God would allow Annie to die.
Or are you even a Christian to begin with? Perhaps I should've
started with that.
And I don't pray. So, where does that leave me?
<I personally think there is something terribly wrong with the
devaluation of human life caused by accepting evolution. We descended >>>>>> from common ancestors along with chimps, gorillas, monkeys horses, >>>>>> swine and dogs. Consequently, we are just animals same as other
animals. So,
as animals in every respect we are of no more worth or value than any >>>>>> other animal. So, we kill and eat other animals so, from a moral
standpoint, why is this more acceptable? The question was asked in a >>>>>> YouTube site of young college people, "If you saw a man and your dog, >>>>>> that you loved, drowning you could only save one which would you save"? >>>>>> As I recall the everyone except a professor said they would save their >>>>>> dog. This means they would let the man die, his life is of no more value >>>>>> than a dog's life. This I'm afraid is where evolution is leading the >>>>>> human race.
No comment! I'm not surprised.
I didn't reply to this because I thought some of the other posters had
addressed it by the time of my post.
True, but science advances, not by going along following the same path
ways that have been explored. But by taking new pathways.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a
Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the
death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally
caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against >>> religion and God whom he blamed.
Back on 17 April, you wrote:
"So, from this evidence I can see where I was clearly mistaken as to
Darwin's intent. He did not initially set out to discredit either
Paley or God."
I had no reason to question Darwin's motives, but I was _not_ aware of
the tragic death of his daughter.
Natural selection is not inventive. It acts only on mistakes and errors
Having been shown to have come out with utter rubbish about the
effect of Paley on Darwin, you now turn to further rubbish to try to
hold on to your belief that Darwin was driven by some desire to get
rid of God.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and other religious
believers have no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution and the
role of Natural Selection.
in the Genetic code. Each generation has a 100 or more mutations. So,
there is a genetic decline over time. If you write a lengthy script on
your computer, but a accidental set of letters or a word is found in the script
This cannot improve your script, but multiple errors destroys the
specified information of the script
never improves the inforation.
This I would think is the same in specified information in DNA.
[...]
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the
victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact
slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of
the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed
an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South.
Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which
earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be
no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from
fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before
the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a
sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a
resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be
banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result
was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free
state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are
seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens-
the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent
inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to
their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured
goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people
for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading
the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern
merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This
also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was
raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm
proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which
otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had
life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met
except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have
control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that
happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
To be fair, secession was a Lost Cause once them g'darrn yan-keys
invented time-traveling devices! Why, according to that "source", they managed to move the entire Senate back in time, so that the Morrill tariff was enacted before the Southern representatives had vacated their seats.
As a certain Karl Marx observed at the time, the tariff was not a cause,
but a consequence of secession.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for
your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you
read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly
with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected
firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this
misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in
doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary
secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a
racist and an apologist for slavers.
Chris
<snip>
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North.
What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built
ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely
mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the
victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs
imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact
slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of
the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed
an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South.
Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which
earlier had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of
topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be
no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from
fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before
the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a
sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a
resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be
banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the
Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result
was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free
state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered
between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all
familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive
Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and
south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now
called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the
Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not
surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years
before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's
unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all
available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are
seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens-
the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their
ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent
inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to
their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is
especially disgusting. Stop it.
and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states
originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured
goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people
for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading
the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern
merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This
also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was
raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm
proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which
otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in Germany
after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had
life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met
except for WWII - not likely. The point is we don't always have
control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that
happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one
don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history,
and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers.
To be fair, secession was a Lost Cause once them g'darrn yan-keys
invented time-traveling devices! Why, according to that "source", they managed to move the entire Senate back in time, so that the Morrill tariff was enacted before the Southern representatives had vacated their seats.
As a certain Karl Marx observed at the time, the tariff was not a cause,
but a consequence of secession.
Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for
your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you
read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly
with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and
Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a
shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an
otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be
described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected
firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this
misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in
doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary
secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing
right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a
racist and an apologist for slavers.
Chris
<snip>
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:53:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:16:57 -0400, Ron DeanThere was no question. Except this one just above. I saw no question
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron DeanI had no reason to question Darwin's motives, but I was _not_ aware of >>>>> the tragic death of his daughter.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a >>>>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the >>>>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally >>>>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed.
Back on 17 April, you wrote:
"So, from this evidence I can see where I was clearly mistaken as to >>>>>> Darwin's intent. He did not initially set out to discredit either
Paley or God."
In other words, you scrabbled around to find something that you could
use to persuade yourself that what you believed was correct, no matter >>>> how much evidence there is against it.
Natural selection is not inventive. It acts only on mistakes and errors >>>>> in the Genetic code. Each generation has a 100 or more mutations. So, >>>>> there is a genetic decline over time. If you write a lengthy script on >>>>> your computer, but a accidental set of letters or a word is found in the >>>>> script
Having been shown to have come out with utter rubbish about the
effect of Paley on Darwin, you now turn to further rubbish to try to >>>>>> hold on to your belief that Darwin was driven by some desire to get >>>>>> rid of God.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and other religious >>>>>> believers have no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution and the >>>>>> role of Natural Selection.
This cannot improve your script, but multiple errors destroys the
specified information of the script
never improves the inforation.
This I would think is the same in specified information in DNA.
Yet again, you simply ignore my question. Does it not bother you at
all that you find that question so hard to answer?
mark (?).
OK, seeing that you couldn't grasp the underlying question in the bit
where I said "I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and
other religious believers have no problem accepting the Theory of
Evolution and the role of Natural Selection.", here it is with a
question mark:
It's matter of English grammar. A question is suppose to end with
question mark.
If not it can easily be overlooked.
What do you believe concerning religion?
How come I and other religious believers have no problem accepting the
Theory of Evolution and the role of Natural Selection?
[...]
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Fri, 10 May 2024 14:43:42 -0400, Ron DeanOk, thanks for clearing that up.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Thu, 9 May 2024 18:51:52 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way you put it. Your first mind-set, as you stated it. You >>>>> became disillusioned with the flood and Christianity.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Vincent Haycock wrote:<snip>
I was a young-earth creationist, so my reading of geology andAround the same time,
paleontology led me to the conclusion that flood geology is a cartoon >>>>>>>> version of science with nothing to support it.
I became an atheist since Christianity didn't seem to make any sense.> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So, you turned to atheism and evolution, not because you first found >>>>>>> positive evidence for evolution and atheism, but rather because of >>>>>>> negative mind-set concerning the flood and Christianity.
No, that's backward.
I said "because of my reading of geology and paleontology."
There is a difference between Creationism and intelligent design, in
I developed a negative mind-set concerning the
Flood and Christianity because of positive evidence for evolution and >>>>>> non-Christianity (which, in the United States is a huge first stepping >>>>>> stone to atheism per se). And of course, as I said, I found negative >>>>>> evidence against the Flood to be voluminous, which is why I said it >>>>>> was cartoon-like.ID stands on it's own, it's not a compromise between anything.
The fact of the matter is, intelligent design says nothing about >>>>>>> either the flood story nor Christianity or any religion or God for that >>>>>>> matter.
Yes, like I said I was a YEC, but the way you phrased it allowed for >>>>>> me to focus on that and not old-earth-creationism or Intelligent
Design or any of those other "compromise" viewpoints that I never
subscribed to.
Right, but that's how we were taught when I was growing up. My
comment was supposed to be historical, not normative.
that ID does not subscribe to the Genesis narrative, Both YEC Old
Earth creationism does. However, both creationism and ID both point to
the same apparent flaws in Evolution and observe the same empirical
evidence.
This is a excellent example of the point I've been making nested
This is an example of interpretation to fit into a paradigm.ID observe essentially the same empirical evidence as
evolutionist do, but they attribute what they see to intelligent design >>>>>>> rather than to evolution. Both the evolutionist and the ID est
interprets the same evidence to _fit_ into his own paradigm.
How does your paradigm explain the nested hierarchies that turn up in >>>>>> phylogenetic studies of living things?
So fit it in to your paradigm, then. Why would the Designer create
such an over-arching and ubiquitous phenomenon that is precisely what
we would expect from evolution?
hierarchies have been mutually seen as strong empirical evidence for
either Evolution or ID. The concept was was first conceived by a
Christian who thought that an intelligent God would arrange animals and
plants etc in an orderly harmonic, systematic, logical and rational
manor: and this he set out to find. This man was a Swedish scientist,
Carolus Linnaeus. He organized organisms into groups which was known at
the time and he characterized organisms into boxes within boxes within
boxes IE groups. His nested hierarchies are incomplete by today
standard, But the concept was his, which he saw as evidence of his
God.
So, it appears the concept was appropriated by evolutionist from a
creation concept.
again, pretty much wrong in every respect. Let's start with the last
sentence:
yes, all science is cumulative, that is new theories are always built
on old theories, and incorporate those parts that stood the test of
time. Which is why eg. Newtonian mechanics is now a proper part of
the theory of relativity. And the same held true for Linnaeus, who did
not invent the concept of nested hierarchy, he merely applied it with
particular rigour, and more data than anyone before him. The concept
goes back to Aristotle's categories and traveled to Linneaus via
the Neoplatonist philosopher Porphyry. Who, funnily enough, was also
the author of a book titled "Against the Christians". So you could say
he
appropriated a pagan and/or atheist concept.
Linnaeus did not just apply the schema to biology and living things, but
also to minerals, rocks, mountain formations and planets. But there it
didn't work and now is all but forgotten.
And there we have the next problem for you and
your use of Linneaus. Linneaus believed of course that God had created
everything, not just living things. Yet the nested hierarchies that we
find in biology don't work for minerals. From an evolution perspective,
that is of course no surprise: descent with modification will always
create natural nested hierarchies, and few other things will. But if
nested hierarchies were also what we should expect from creation by God,
then the absence of natural nested hierarchies in the rest of the world
should indicate that they are not the result of design, so Christianity
would be disproven.
Generally, Linnaeus SO doesn't work for you, on pretty much every
level. First, he grouped humans among the apes,these among quadrupeds,
and these in animalia. Yes, that worried him from a theological
perspective, but when attacked for it, he was adamant that that was
just what the data showed. He challenged his critics to find one
objective fact that would allow them to distinguish humans from other
apes (Carl Linnaeus to Johann Georg Gmelin, letter 25 February 1747) So
going back
to your nonsense about the alleged moral implications of nesting humans
among other animal groups, Linneaus did this long before Darwin.
Oh, and as we are at it, unlike Darwin he also introduced subcategories
(albeit as variations, not species) for humans, and not only that, he
ranked them. So Black africans according to his schema were:
from their temperament phlegmatic and lazy, biologically having dark hair, >> with many twisting braids; silky skin; flat nose; swollen lips; Women
with elongated labia; breasts lactating profusely and from their
character Sly, sluggish, and neglectful. White people by contrast were by
temperament sanguine and strong, biologically with plenty of yellow
hair; blue eyes, and from their character light, wise, and inventors
etc.
Modern scientific racism has its origins here rather than in Darwin.
Now, did he as you claim consider the nested hierarchies as evidence for
God? Not quite, though that is an easy mistake to make for modern
readers, who look at him through Paleyan lenses. But he didn't, and the
reasons are interesting. He was not a natural theologian in the Paleyan
mold, and the inference does not run from: "we observe nested
hierarchies, these are what we should expect from God's design,
therefore God" The
problem with this inference was always that it is inconsistent with
God's omnipotence - God could have created differently had he so
chosen, which means we can't use His contingent choice as evidence for
anything.
What Linnaeus does is reasoning in the other direction. He takes God's
existence and the fact that he is the Creator as a given - no further
evidence is needed or wanted. But by seeing order in his creation, we
are seeing beauty, it lifts us up and also makes the world intelligible
to
us. So we should be grateful for, and maybe moved by the way he
created, but that is very different from "believing more" - it is an
aesthetic, not
an epistemological response. For the ToE this is very different. We know
that descent with modification will always create nested hierarchies, we
can model this on computers, and observe it also in e.g. printing
errors in book printing. So unlike God, evolution HAS to create nested
hierarchies, which then makes the observation of them suitable evidence.
Or with other words, the concept of "God" has no explanatory function
in Linneaus theory, and that is part of the reason why it was so easy
to simply
adapt it to evolutionary thinking, it only needed a new coat of paint
OK, and now let's move on to this theory. He did indeed, at least initially, >> fully embrace species fixism. However, and rather counterintuitively, he
also embraced gradualism. In fact, the often-cited Latin form of the
principle, "Natura non facit saltus" comes from him - though the idea
is older, and was
an Axiom e.g. in Leibniz' work. Ultimalty, it too goes back to
Aristotle, and there we find the reason why Linneaus also extended his
schema to rocks and minerals:
"Nature proceeds little by little from things lifeless to animal life
in such a way that it is impossible to determine the exact line of
demarcation, nor on which side thereof an intermediate form should lie.
Thus, next after lifeless things in the upward scale comes the plant,
and of plants one will differ from another as to its amount of apparent
vitality; and, in a word, the whole genus of plants, whilst it is
devoid of life as compared with an animal, is endowed with life as
compared with other corporeal entities. Indeed, as we just remarked,
there is observed in plants a continuous scale of ascent towards the
animal."
So, God created all species at once, and in a fixed state, AND in a
finaley gradiated way so that we can trace their "ancestry" (scare
quote, they are not earlier in time, only in God's thought - from
his perspective they are "one", in the way a lake is one: just with
different depth, getting gradually deeper as one gets to the centre).
Now what are the implications of this? Well, according to Linnaeus
we SHOULD indeed find rabbits in the Cambrian, and not just rabbits,
but elephants, whales and indeed humans. So a bit of a problem right
there. But there is one thing we MUST NOT find in his model, and that
is "sudden appearances". A) because everything happened at the same
time, so no one species appears before the other, and B) because
nature makes no leaps, so for each animal we should be able
to trace its "ancestry" back, gradually and wihtout inerruption, to
rocks. Now, according to your mangled version of Gould, what we in fact
"observee is just the opposite: sudden appearances, and no
gradual progression. With ohter words if your "theory" , i.e. your
disfigured Gouldian punktuated equilibrium, were true, then linneaus
would definitly be false, his theory is much , much more incompatible
with sudden appearances than Darwin's. So you'll have to make up your
mind which nonsense you want to peddle, your misunderstanding of Gould
or your misunderstanding of Linneaus.
One final point, and that is another big problem for you. Linnaeus did
indeed START as a species fixist. However, he also found more and more
evidence that that picture was irreconcilable with the facts. A
watershed moment was for him was the discovery of a variant of
the common toad-flax (Linaria vulgaris L.). The plant, had four
more spurs than the common toad-flax, and yet was clearly produced by
these. That violated his idea that genera and species hwere the result
of one single act of original creation, unchanged ever since. He was
so shocked by the finding that he called the newly found plant
'Peloria', i.e. 'monster'.
Quite a bot of his late work was dedicated to come up with new theoories
that explained Peloria, and all the other examples that kept popping
up. He wasn't happy with either of them, and while he continued
to write about this, he dropped any reference to species fixism from
his book on taxonomy, realising, correctly, that his taxonomy
was independent from his theory of creation. Another reason why using
the system was straightforward also for Darwin and his followers,
Linnaeus himself had realised that a) the data did not suport fixism
and b) his classification did not depend on it. (for details see eg.
Gustafsson, ke. "Linnaeus' peloria: the history of a monster."
Theoretical and Applied Genetics 54 (1979): 241-248)
Thank you for this post. I enjoyed it, and learned from it.
Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 12:53:57 -0400, Ron DeanIt's matter of English grammar. A question is suppose to end with
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Tue, 14 May 2024 11:16:57 -0400, Ron DeanThere was no question. Except this one just above. I saw no question
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:01:28 -0400, Ron DeanI had no reason to question Darwin's motives, but I was _not_ aware of >>>>>> the tragic death of his daughter.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
There is something, rarely mentioned in the literature. Darwin was a >>>>>>>> Christian until a great tragedy befell him and his family. That's the >>>>>>>> death of his daughter, Annie in 1851 at the age of 10. This naturally >>>>>>>> caused great pain to Darwin and this terrible tragedy turned him against
religion and God whom he blamed.
Back on 17 April, you wrote:
"So, from this evidence I can see where I was clearly mistaken as to >>>>>>> Darwin's intent. He did not initially set out to discredit either >>>>>>> Paley or God."
In other words, you scrabbled around to find something that you could >>>>> use to persuade yourself that what you believed was correct, no matter >>>>> how much evidence there is against it.
Natural selection is not inventive. It acts only on mistakes and errors >>>>>> in the Genetic code. Each generation has a 100 or more mutations. So, >>>>>> there is a genetic decline over time. If you write a lengthy script on >>>>>> your computer, but a accidental set of letters or a word is found in the >>>>>> script
Having been shown to have come out with utter rubbish about the >>>>>>> effect of Paley on Darwin, you now turn to further rubbish to try to >>>>>>> hold on to your belief that Darwin was driven by some desire to get >>>>>>> rid of God.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and other religious >>>>>>> believers have no problem accepting the Theory of Evolution and the >>>>>>> role of Natural Selection.
This cannot improve your script, but multiple errors destroys the
specified information of the script
never improves the inforation.
This I would think is the same in specified information in DNA.
Yet again, you simply ignore my question. Does it not bother you at
all that you find that question so hard to answer?
mark (?).
OK, seeing that you couldn't grasp the underlying question in the bit
where I said "I'm still waiting for you to explain how come I and
other religious believers have no problem accepting the Theory of
Evolution and the role of Natural Selection.", here it is with a
question mark:
question mark.
not, if it is as here, an indirect question. See the Chicago Manual of
Style, fifteenth edition (2003) at 6.72, "Indirect question".
If not it can easily be overlooked.
What do you believe concerning religion?
How come I and other religious believers have no problem accepting the
Theory of Evolution and the role of Natural Selection?
[...]
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument,
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the >>>>>>>>>> North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and
Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave
trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of >>>>>>>>>> course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs >>>>>>>>>> imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In >>>>>>>>>> fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the >>>>>>>>>> start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great >>>>>>>>>> Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the >>>>>>>>>> side of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which >>>>>>>>>> deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading. >>>>>>>>>>
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding >>>>>>>>> list of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be
abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so
immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would >>>>>>>>> be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them >>>>>>>>> from fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time >>>>>>>>> before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people >>>>>>>>> all of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that
Convention a resolution was passed that the international slave >>>>>>>>> trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the >>>>>>>>> Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the >>>>>>>>> result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and
Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850,
brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names >>>>>>>>> sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included,
shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to
inflame tensions between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the >>>>>>>>> Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now >>>>>>>>> called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and >>>>>>>>> the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? >>>>>>>>> Not surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until >>>>>>>>> two years before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you,
that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery. >>>>>>>>> Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all >>>>>>>>> available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason
they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander
Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the
cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the war; it >>>>>>>>> is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that >>>>>>>>> relegates them to their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is >>>>>>>>> especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states >>>>>>>> originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere.
Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and
manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded
with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going >>>>>>>> to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought >>>>>>>> slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) >>>>>>>> gfathers was a slave. This also applies to most African-
Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung. >>>>>>>> Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part >>>>>>>> of my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would
not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in
Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not >>>>>>>> have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother
ever have met except for WWII - not likely. The point is we >>>>>>>> don't always have control over the events that happened, and
often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some >>>>>>>> of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one >>>>>>> don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family
history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers. >>>>>>> Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty
apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit?
As for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end >>>>>>> (did you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is
matched evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden >>>>>>> and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had
been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally
alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, >>>>>>> at best, be described as short term economic favors to a few
politically connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy
eagerly exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for
diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff >>>>>>> cause from its role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a
centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are
pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first
shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and
you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back
stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an shred >>>>>> of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt >>>>>> is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have
nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the
Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the
Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas-
all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that
tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the
Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of
which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I also brought up
the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the CSA, in which
he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not
exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and
deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of
racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer
that you are the once with no evidence, and you are going into your
little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you
refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still
wrong about everything) and the garbage you spew is racist
revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be
wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of
me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the
abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was
published in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the
slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery years
before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as Dean
trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal in northern
states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is difficult to find.
This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended,
Chris
Going back to the 11th Century
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between the
old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the poor. He
was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together with Lanfranc,
was mainly responsible for ending the trade from Bristol." (WikiPedia)
never thought and never meant!
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended,
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, >>>>>>>> they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back
Chris Thompson wrote:90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for >>>>>>>>> one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family >>>>>>>>> history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the >>>>>>>>>>>> North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and
Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave >>>>>>>>>>>> trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of >>>>>>>>>>>> course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was
tariffs imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to >>>>>>>>>>>> slavery. In fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 >>>>>>>>>>>> years after the start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>> only after Great Brittan showed an interested in entering >>>>>>>>>>>> into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then made >>>>>>>>>>>> a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had >>>>>>>>>>>> outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding >>>>>>>>>>> list of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be >>>>>>>>>>> abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so >>>>>>>>>>> immediately after gaining independence from Britain there >>>>>>>>>>> would be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop >>>>>>>>>>> them from fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in >>>>>>>>>>> the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of >>>>>>>>>>> time before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) >>>>>>>>>>> people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at >>>>>>>>>>> that Convention a resolution was passed that the
international slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800. >>>>>>>>>>>
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the >>>>>>>>>>> Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the >>>>>>>>>>> result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and >>>>>>>>>>> Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850,
brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those >>>>>>>>>>> names sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included, >>>>>>>>>>> shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to >>>>>>>>>>> inflame tensions between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the >>>>>>>>>>> Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster >>>>>>>>>>> now called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John >>>>>>>>>>> Brown, and the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's >>>>>>>>>>> Ferry? No? Not surprising if you think no one cared about >>>>>>>>>>> slavery until two years before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, >>>>>>>>>>> that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. >>>>>>>>>>> Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're >>>>>>>>>>> all available. Without fail, they all inform us that the >>>>>>>>>>> reason they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander
Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the
cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the war; >>>>>>>>>>> it is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") >>>>>>>>>>> that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is >>>>>>>>>>> especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern
states originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. >>>>>>>>>> Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and
manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded >>>>>>>>>> with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers >>>>>>>>>> going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but >>>>>>>>>> they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my
ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies to >>>>>>>>>> most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, >>>>>>>>>> and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm >>>>>>>>>> proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which >>>>>>>>>> otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in >>>>>>>>>> Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would >>>>>>>>>> not have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and >>>>>>>>>> mother ever have met except for WWII - not likely. The point >>>>>>>>>> is we don't always have control over the events that happened, >>>>>>>>>> and often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for >>>>>>>>>> some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history >>>>>>>>>
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial
advisers. Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find
even a shitty apologist historian to support your disgusting >>>>>>>>> racist bullshit? As for your second reference, here's a passage >>>>>>>>> from near the end (did you read anything besides the title?
Your scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- both are >>>>>>>>> in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden >>>>>>>>> and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had >>>>>>>>> been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally
alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what
could, at best, be described as short term economic favors to a >>>>>>>>> few politically connected firms and industrialists. The
Confederacy eagerly exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful >>>>>>>>> quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so also elevated >>>>>>>>> the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary secessionist
grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are
pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first >>>>>>>>> shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and >>>>>>>>> you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an shred >>>>>>>> of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no
doubt is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll >>>>>>>> have nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the >>>>>>> Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the
Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- >>>>>>> all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that
tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the >>>>>>> Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of
which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I also brought up >>>>>>> the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the CSA, in which >>>>>>> he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not >>>>>>> exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and >>>>>>> deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap >>>>>>> of racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual
observer that you are the once with no evidence, and you are
going into your little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You >>>>>>> are dishonest, you refuse to address arguments that prove you
wrong (and you're still wrong about everything) and the garbage
you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be
wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion >>>>>>> of me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the
abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was
published in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the
slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery
years before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as
Dean trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal in
northern states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is
difficult to find.
Chris
Going back to the 11th Century
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between the
old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the poor. He
was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together with
Lanfranc, was mainly responsible for ending the trade from Bristol."
(WikiPedia)
never thought and never meant!
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the
cause of the Civil War.
I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War. I had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil
War. I did a search of the net and what I found was that unfair tariffs imposed on the South was the cause of the war between the states. I was surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica, Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine: https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/
The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of
Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.
Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that slavery definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South for 240+
years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have been other factors which sparked the war. I know there were people in the North and indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of Southerners were
slave holders.
The spew you
asserted is typical- no, stereotypical- of racist Lost Cause
apologists trying to whitewash the south's reprehensible behavior. And
you never rejected it.
QED. The shoe fits.
Chris
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended,
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, >>>>>>>> they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back
Chris Thompson wrote:90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for >>>>>>>>> one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family >>>>>>>>> history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant,
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the >>>>>>>>>>>> North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and
Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave >>>>>>>>>>>> trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of >>>>>>>>>>>> course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs >>>>>>>>>>>> imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In >>>>>>>>>>>> fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the >>>>>>>>>>>> start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great >>>>>>>>>>>> Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the >>>>>>>>>>>> side of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which >>>>>>>>>>>> deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading. >>>>>>>>>>>>
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding >>>>>>>>>>> list of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be >>>>>>>>>>> abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so >>>>>>>>>>> immediately after gaining independence from Britain there >>>>>>>>>>> would be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop >>>>>>>>>>> them from fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in >>>>>>>>>>> the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of >>>>>>>>>>> time before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) >>>>>>>>>>> people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at >>>>>>>>>>> that Convention a resolution was passed that the international >>>>>>>>>>> slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the >>>>>>>>>>> Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the >>>>>>>>>>> result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and >>>>>>>>>>> Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850,
brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those >>>>>>>>>>> names sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included, >>>>>>>>>>> shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to >>>>>>>>>>> inflame tensions between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the >>>>>>>>>>> Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now >>>>>>>>>>> called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, >>>>>>>>>>> and the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? >>>>>>>>>>> No? Not surprising if you think no one cared about slavery >>>>>>>>>>> until two years before the Civil War.
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, >>>>>>>>>>> that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. >>>>>>>>>>> Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all >>>>>>>>>>> available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason >>>>>>>>>>> they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander
Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the
cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the war; >>>>>>>>>>> it is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") >>>>>>>>>>> that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is >>>>>>>>>>> especially disgusting. Stop it.
unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern
states originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. >>>>>>>>>> Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and
manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded >>>>>>>>>> with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers >>>>>>>>>> going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they >>>>>>>>>> bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my
ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies to >>>>>>>>>> most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, >>>>>>>>>> and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm >>>>>>>>>> proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which >>>>>>>>>> otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in >>>>>>>>>> Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not >>>>>>>>>> have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother >>>>>>>>>> ever have met except for WWII - not likely. The point is we >>>>>>>>>> don't always have control over the events that happened, and >>>>>>>>>> often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some >>>>>>>>>> of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history >>>>>>>>>
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial
advisers. Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even >>>>>>>>> a shitty apologist historian to support your disgusting racist >>>>>>>>> bullshit? As for your second reference, here's a passage from >>>>>>>>> near the end (did you read anything besides the title? Your
scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- both are in the >>>>>>>>> sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden >>>>>>>>> and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had >>>>>>>>> been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally
alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, >>>>>>>>> at best, be described as short term economic favors to a few >>>>>>>>> politically connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy >>>>>>>>> eagerly exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for >>>>>>>>> diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff >>>>>>>>> cause from its role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a >>>>>>>>> centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are
pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first >>>>>>>>> shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and >>>>>>>>> you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an shred >>>>>>>> of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no
doubt is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll >>>>>>>> have nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the >>>>>>> Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the
Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- >>>>>>> all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that
tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the >>>>>>> Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of
which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I also brought up >>>>>>> the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the CSA, in which >>>>>>> he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not >>>>>>> exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and >>>>>>> deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap >>>>>>> of racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual
observer that you are the once with no evidence, and you are going >>>>>>> into your little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are
dishonest, you refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong
(and you're still wrong about everything) and the garbage you spew >>>>>>> is racist revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be
wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion >>>>>>> of me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the
abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was
published in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the
slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery
years before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as
Dean trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal in
northern states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is
difficult to find.
Chris
Going back to the 11th Century
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between the
old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the poor. He
was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together with Lanfranc,
was mainly responsible for ending the trade from Bristol." (WikiPedia) >>>>
never thought and never meant!
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the
cause of the Civil War.
I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War. I
had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil
War. I did a search of the net
and what I found was that unfair tariffs
imposed on the South
was the cause of the war between the states. I was
surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica, Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine: https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/
The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of
Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that slavery
definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South for 240+
years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have been other
factors which sparked the war.
I know there were people in the North and
indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of Southerners were
slave holders.
The spew you
asserted is typical- no, stereotypical- of racist Lost Cause apologists
trying to whitewash the south's reprehensible behavior. And you never
rejected it.
QED. The shoe fits.
Chris
John Harshman wrote:
On 5/18/24 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:You are right! I don't know why I got involved with this topic.The truth
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended,
Ernest Major wrote:
On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:From the previous century
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, >>>>>>>>>> they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back >>>>>>>>>> stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an >>>>>>>>>> shred
Chris Thompson wrote:90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for >>>>>>>>>>> one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your
Ron Dean wrote:Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, >>>>>>>>>>>> unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
major snip
;The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave >>>>>>>>>>>>>> trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tariffs imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery. In fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> years after the start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only after Great Brittan showed an interested in entering >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier >>>>>>>>>>>>>> had outlawed slave trading.
Well we can add US history to the
lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of topics about which you >>>>>>>>>>>>> blather sans knowledge.
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so >>>>>>>>>>>>> immediately after gaining independence from Britain there >>>>>>>>>>>>> would be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't >>>>>>>>>>>>> stop them from fighting about slavery (and viciously at >>>>>>>>>>>>> times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a >>>>>>>>>>>>> fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert >>>>>>>>>>>>> (idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with >>>>>>>>>>>>> slavery. And at that Convention a resolution was passed >>>>>>>>>>>>> that the international slave trade would be banned in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> US in 1800.
You also apparently slept through the part in class when >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, >>>>>>>>>>>>> and the result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave >>>>>>>>>>>>> state and Maine as a free state.
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, >>>>>>>>>>>>> brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those >>>>>>>>>>>>> names sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included, >>>>>>>>>>>>> shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to >>>>>>>>>>>>> inflame tensions between north and south.
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to >>>>>>>>>>>>> the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the >>>>>>>>>>>>> disaster now called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard >>>>>>>>>>>>> of John Brown, and the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid >>>>>>>>>>>>> on Harper's Ferry? No? Not surprising if you think no one >>>>>>>>>>>>> cared about slavery until two years before the Civil War. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, >>>>>>>>>>>>> that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're >>>>>>>>>>>>> all available. Without fail, they all inform us that the >>>>>>>>>>>>> reason they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander >>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the >>>>>>>>>>>>> war; it is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Negro") that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War >>>>>>>>>>>>> is especially disgusting. Stop it.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern >>>>>>>>>>>> states originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. >>>>>>>>>>>> Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and >>>>>>>>>>>> manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded >>>>>>>>>>>> with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers >>>>>>>>>>>> going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but >>>>>>>>>>>> they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my >>>>>>>>>>>> ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave. This also applies >>>>>>>>>>>> to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was >>>>>>>>>>>> raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not >>>>>>>>>>>> that I'm proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had >>>>>>>>>>>> life, which otherwise I would not have had.
My mother was from Germany, married my father, stationed in >>>>>>>>>>>> Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would >>>>>>>>>>>> not have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and >>>>>>>>>>>> mother ever have met except for WWII - not likely. The >>>>>>>>>>>> point is we don't always have control over the events that >>>>>>>>>>>> happened, and often tragedies that happen can have positive >>>>>>>>>>>> outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
;https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history >>>>>>>>>>>
family history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial
advisers. Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find >>>>>>>>>>> even a shitty apologist historian to support your disgusting >>>>>>>>>>> racist bullshit? As for your second reference, here's a
passage from near the end (did you read anything besides the >>>>>>>>>>> title? Your scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- >>>>>>>>>>> both are in the sewer):
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as >>>>>>>>>>> Cobden and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill >>>>>>>>>>> Tariff had been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It
unintentionally alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery >>>>>>>>>>> ally for what could, at best, be described as short term >>>>>>>>>>> economic favors to a few politically connected firms and >>>>>>>>>>> industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this
misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, >>>>>>>>>>> yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role >>>>>>>>>>> as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of >>>>>>>>>>> Lost Cause historiography."
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are >>>>>>>>>>> pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your >>>>>>>>>>> first shitty reference).
You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and >>>>>>>>>>> you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.
;
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no >>>>>>>>>> doubt is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll >>>>>>>>>> have nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after >>>>>>>>> the Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, >>>>>>>>> the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding >>>>>>>>> Kansas- all years before the start of the Civil War. You
claimed that tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I >>>>>>>>> brought up the Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel >>>>>>>>> states, all of which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I >>>>>>>>> also brought up the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of >>>>>>>>> the CSA, in which he clearly states the same thing.
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does >>>>>>>>> not exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause
bullshit and deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical >>>>>>>>> apologetic crap of racist revisionists. It would seem obvious >>>>>>>>> to the casual observer that you are the once with no evidence, >>>>>>>>> and you are going into your little anger routine (again) to
cover it up. You are dishonest, you refuse to address arguments >>>>>>>>> that prove you wrong (and you're still wrong about everything) >>>>>>>>> and the garbage you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be >>>>>>>>> wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good
opinion of me.
Chris
snip
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the
abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787. >>>>>>>>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was >>>>>>>> published in 1792.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the >>>>>>> slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery
years before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just
as Dean trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal
in northern states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is >>>>>>> difficult to find.
Chris
Going back to the 11th Century
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between
the old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the
poor. He was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together
with Lanfranc, was mainly responsible for ending the trade from
Bristol." (WikiPedia)
never thought and never meant!
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the
cause of the Civil War.
;
I had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US
Civil War. I did a search of the net and what I found was that unfair
tariffs imposed on the South was the cause of the war between the
states. I was surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica,
Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine:
https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/
1st link is to a video I refuse to watch.
2nd link does not make the claim.
3rd link makes the claim but doesn't support it, with good reason
since it can't be supported.
4th link doesn't make the claim.
5th link doesn't make the claim.
I think you just googled "tariff" and "civil war" without reading the
results.
The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of
Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that
slavery definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South
for 240+ years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have
been other factors which sparked the war. I know there were people in
the North and indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of
Southerners were slave holders.
Neither claim is relevant. It wasn't the mere existence of slavery
that was the cause of the war. It was the election of Lincoln,
perceived in the south (rightly) as a threat to slavery. That is,
slavery wasn't the cause, per se, it was the desire of the south to
preserve slavery that was the cause. And while a small percentage of
southerners were slaveholders, they were the ones in charge. And
slaveholders made up a much higher percentage of the Confederate
government and army than of the general (white) population.
You need to stop digging.
is, I've never lost any sleep over the US civil War or it's cause. But
my curiosity was aroused when I learned that slavery in the US was in practice for 240 years before the start of the civil war. So, it seemed obvious that something besides slavery that had to _spark_ the war. It
was the election of Lincoln as President. But then I learned about
Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, editor and publisher of the New York Tribune newspaper.
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-horace-greeley/
This falsely implies that stating the obvious is being racist. I statedThe spew you
asserted is typical- no, stereotypical- of racist Lost Cause
my personal view on this earlier, "Not that I don't find the fact that slavery was repugnant, unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do."
This is a deliberate ball-faced lie, I wrote _nothing_ for the purposeapologists trying to whitewash the south's reprehensible behavior.
And you never rejected it.
of whitewashing the South's institution of slavery. Reprehensible
behavior should be applied to both the North and the South.
The North because of the slave trade merchants, that sent ships to
Africa and traded for slaves which they brought back and sold to the
South for profit. The South for buying slaves from Northern slave
merchants. Both the North and the South behavior was reprehensible -
both were wrong! I condemn the practice of both the slavers and those
who purchased slaves from the slavers.
QED. The shoe fits.
Chris
Chris Thompson wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the
cause of the Civil War.
I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War. I had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil
War. I did a search of the net and what I found was that unfair tariffs imposed on the South was the cause of the war between the states. I was surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica, Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine: https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/
The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of
Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that slavery definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South for 240+
years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have been other factors which sparked the war. I know there were people in the North and indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of Southerners were
slave holders.
On 5/20/24 4:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:[big snip]
For billions of years only single cell living organisms existed, but
suddenly (geological speaking) most of the modern phylum appears in
the fossil record mainly the Cambrian and very few in any in later
periods. There is no known mechanism that explains the origin of these
organisms. The fact remains there is a massive amount of specific
information (instructions) that's infused in DNA code, which is the
very basis upon which all life is founded, yet the origin of this
specific information is not known. The edit and repair mechanisms in
DNA, designed to assure high fidelity in the information in DNA, its
origin is not _known_. Yet, specific information is observed coming
from intelligence and only intelligence, other than life, there is no
other source known for specific information.
Why didn't all the phyla that originated in the Cambrian go extinct
within a few million years, due to genetic deterioration?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 428 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 108:57:28 |
| Calls: | 9,053 |
| Files: | 13,395 |
| Messages: | 6,015,914 |