Evolution is Just Junk Science

July 2, 2007

In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they

> > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any

> > competition?

>

> Is that the reason you attack evolution?

No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion

(and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most

of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution.

Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection.

They do not support common descent or abiogenesis.

jason

July 2, 2007

In article <rtOdndOu0btmphTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

<spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Jason wrote:

> >

> > In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it

> > happened, a cell colony would have to remain a cell colony

> > before the next step of evolution would take place--true or

> > false?

>

> Of course that is false..... but then you know that. Why do you

> insist on making up things and them actually believing them?

These are the steps--note the first 4 steps.

> > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > reproduction)

> > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > survival)

> > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > function)

> > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

July 2, 2007

In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:50:30 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

><spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>> > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they

>> > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any

>> > competition?

>>

>> Is that the reason you attack evolution?

>

>No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught.

Then you should also want spheroid-earth and flat-earth

taught.

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

July 2, 2007

In alt.atheism On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 11:06:49 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

(Jason) let us all know that:

>In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp966@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

><ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

>

>> In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, Jason@nospam.com

>> (Jason) let us all know that:

>>

>> >In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

>> ><spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Jason wrote:

>> >> > Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells

>> >> > evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you

>> >> > explain this:

>> >> >

>> >> > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form

>> >> > To Protect Itself

>> >>

>> >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand.

>> >

>> >or reverse evolution

>>

>> There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever

>> upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is.

>>

>One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases

>of a genus evolving into another genus today.

That's nice, but doesn't address what I'm talking about.

> Yes, I have seen evidence of

>a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I

>have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of

>bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a

>creature that was not a horse.

So you haven't seen the fossil transition from mesonychid

mammals to whales?

Don

---

aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

July 2, 2007

In article <1183401575.719720.76400@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> On Jul 2, 11:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> >

> > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> > > In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > > (Jason) let us all know that:

> >

> > > >In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, "David V."

> > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >

> > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > >> > Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells

> > > >> > evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you

> > > >> > explain this:

> >

> > > >> > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form

> > > >> > To Protect Itself

> >

> > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand.

> >

> > > >or reverse evolution

> >

> > > There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever

> > > upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is.

> >

> > > Don

> > > ---

> > > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

> > > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

> >

> > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

> > > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

> >

> > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases

> > of a genus evolving into another genus today. Yes, I have seen evidence of

> > a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I

> > have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of

> > bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a

> > creature that was not a horse.

>

> You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day

> animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a

> creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is:

> yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved

> into the modern horse:

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other

animals that are NOT FOXES today.

>

> > The advocates of creation science believe

> > the evidence that it is possible for animals and plants to adapt or

> > evolve--examples include the fruit fly evolution and bacteria evolution

> > mentioned above. However, the advocates of creation sciece do NOT believe

> > it is possible for one genus to evolve into another genus.

>

> 1) The is no such thing as "creation science", because Creationism is

> a religious belief.

> 2) The "creation religious believers" are mistaken, there is

> overwhelming evidence that life on Earth has evolved over time from

> one genus to another.

>

> > The "Single-Celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplakton Changes to Form to

> > Protect Itself" supports creation science and is NOT evidence for a cell

> > colony evolving into a multicelled life form. In fact, it this case the

> > cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form. The Cell Colony

> > changed to single cells that were no longer part of the cell colony.

>

> This is not an example of evolution, it is an example of behavior. No

> creature or group of creatures ever "evolves" within its own

> lifetime. Evolution is a process that requires multiple generations.

>

> - Bob T.

Bob,

These are the steps. Would a multicelled life form (step 4) ever have

happened if the cell colony (step 3) had never remained to be a cell

colony on a long term basis?

> > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > reproduction)

> > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > survival)

> > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > function)

> > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

July 2, 2007

On Jul 2, 12:02 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

<snip>

> > > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases

> > > of a genus evolving into another genus today. Yes, I have seen evidence of

> > > a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I

> > > have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of

> > > bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a

> > > creature that was not a horse.

>

> > You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day

> > animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a

> > creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is:

> > yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved

> > into the modern horse:

>

> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

>

> Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other

> animals that are NOT FOXES today.

We do not know what foxes, humans, or redwood trees will evolve into

someday in the future. We cannot collect evidence about what will

happen in the future - all we can do is analyze what has happened in

the past. What does the past tell us? It tells us that every living

thing on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor, and that some of us

living things have changed very greatly over time from that ancestor.

It seems to me that you have a mental block about the time scales

involved here. The amount of evolution that a species undergoes in a

single generation is miniscule. There is no reason to expect foxes to

evolve into anything non-fox-like within the time frame of human

history. Come back in a million years, though, and you will see any

number of species have evolved into something different from their

present-day forms.

It's like watching a child grow up. Your question is like asking "How

can you say your child is growing up? I saw her yesterday and she

doesn't look any different. I see no evidence that your child is

changing into an adult!"

- Bob T.

>

> > > The advocates of creation science believe

> > > the evidence that it is possible for animals and plants to adapt or

> > > evolve--examples include the fruit fly evolution and bacteria evolution

> > > mentioned above. However, the advocates of creation sciece do NOT believe

> > > it is possible for one genus to evolve into another genus.

>

> > 1) The is no such thing as "creation science", because Creationism is

> > a religious belief.

> > 2) The "creation religious believers" are mistaken, there is

> > overwhelming evidence that life on Earth has evolved over time from

> > one genus to another.

>

> > > The "Single-Celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplakton Changes to Form to

> > > Protect Itself" supports creation science and is NOT evidence for a cell

> > > colony evolving into a multicelled life form. In fact, it this case the

> > > cell colony did not evolve into a multicelled life form. The Cell Colony

> > > changed to single cells that were no longer part of the cell colony.

>

> > This is not an example of evolution, it is an example of behavior. No

> > creature or group of creatures ever "evolves" within its own

> > lifetime. Evolution is a process that requires multiple generations.

>

> > - Bob T.

>

> Bob,

> These are the steps. Would a multicelled life form (step 4) ever have

> happened if the cell colony (step 3) had never remained to be a cell

> colony on a long term basis?

>

> > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > > reproduction)

> > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > > survival)

> > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > > function)

> > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

July 2, 2007

In article <Jason-0107072117580001@66-52-22-65.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

>

> In article <rPGdnUEMCJsZ5BXbnZ2dnUVZ_h_inZ2d@comcast.com>, John Popelish

> <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote:

>

> > Jason wrote:

> > > In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> > > <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > >>> Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells

> > >>> evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you

> > >>> explain this:

> > >>>

> > >>> Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form

> > >>> To Protect Itself

> > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand.

> > >

> > > or reverse evolution

> >

> > What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"?

>

> an example:

> cell colony reverse evolving into single cells

Well, slime molds provide a nifty example of an organism

which can form mobile colonies from single cells, colonies

which later may dissolve back into individual, independent

cells.

>

> This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution)

> a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted

> provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells.

>

> > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > > reproduction)

> > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > > survival)

> > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > > function)

> > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

>

July 2, 2007

In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > John Popelish

> > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > >> Jason wrote:

> > ...

> > >>> or reverse evolution

> > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"?

> >

> > > an example:

> > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells

> >

> > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the

> > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular.

> >

> > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example

> > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary

> > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you

> > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it.

> >

> > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution)

> > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted

> > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells.

> >

> > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing

> > population, that spreads through that population by natural

> > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no

> > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution

> > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect.

> > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes.

> >

> > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > >>>>> reproduction)

> > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > >>>>> survival)

> > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > >>>>> function)

> > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

> >

> > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the

> > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took

> > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day

> > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss

> > of function, because their host provides such a special and

> > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to

> > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But

> > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution,

> > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining

> > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need

> > because they had a different environment, is continuing

> > evolution.

> >

> > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during

> > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and

> > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for

> > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler

> > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing

> > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger

> > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler

> > variant, that each take advantage of different niches.

> >

> > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start

> > out with the preconceived notion that all things are

> > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is

> > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of

> > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and

> > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason

> > than because they can happen.

>

> Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"?

> Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD

Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude

estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd

say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate.

-- cary

July 2, 2007

Jason wrote:

>

> One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not

> seen cases of a genus evolving into another genus today.

Invariably that "criticism" comes from someone that does not, or

chooses not to, understand evolution.

If you applied the same lines of arguments to your god beliefs as

you do to evolution; the gods would disappear. I guess you can't

do that so you just attack what you see as competition.

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 2, 2007

Jason wrote:

> You already know that we believe that God created mankind;

> some plants and some animals.

Yet you have failed at every opportunity to provide any proof of

that this god exists. Until you prove the god exists you cannot

claim it created anything. You have even less proof for a god

than what proof you believe there isn't for evolution.

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 2, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David

> V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>> Jason wrote:

>>

>>> \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they

>>> attacked Galileo was because they did not want any

>>> competition?

>>

>> Is that the reason you attack evolution?

>

> No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught.

Why should your religious beliefs be taught in public schools?

It is the law in this country that religious beliefs are not to

be taught in public schools. Don't our laws mean anything to you?

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 2, 2007

Jason wrote:

> In article <rtOdndOu0btmphTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@sti.net>, "David V."

> <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>>Jason wrote:

>>

>>>In order for evolution to happen the way that you stated it

>>>happened, a cell colony would have to remain a cell colony

>>>before the next step of evolution would take place--true or

>>>false?

>>

>>Of course that is false..... but then you know that. Why do you

>>insist on making up things and them actually believing them?

>

> These are the steps--note the first 4 steps.

Those are not the "steps." Evolution does not work that way.

There are no "steps."

--

Dave

"Sacred cows make the best hamburger." Mark Twain.

July 2, 2007

In article <1183367099.938399.69480@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes:

> On Jul 2, 12:04 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1183347076.966093.157...@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jul 2, 10:35 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > > Question for group:

> > > > Martin told me that single animal cells evolved into animal cell colonies.

> > > > If that is true

> >

> > > There's no IF about it.

> >

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_multicellularity

> >

> > > "The third, final and most convincing explanation of

> > > multicellularisation is the Colonial Theory which was proposed by

> > > Haeckel in 1874. The theory claims that the symbiosis of many

> > > organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which

> > > suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular

> > > organism. At least some, presumably land-evolved, multicellularity

> > > occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (i.e., cellular slime

> > > molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those which

> > > evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a

> > > consequence of cells failing to separate following division[2]. The

> > > mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as

> > > incomplete cytokinesis, though multicelluarity is also typically

> > > consided to involve cellular differentiation[3]

> >

> > > "The advantage of the Colonial Theory hypothesis is that it has been

> > > seen to occur independently numerous times (in 16 different

> > > protoctistan phyla). For instance, Dictyostelium is an amoeba which

> > > groups together during times of food shortage, forming a colony that

> > > moves as one to a new location. Some of these amoeba then become

> > > slightly differentiated from each other. Other examples of colonial

> > > organisation in protozoa are Eudorina and Volvox (the latter of which

> > > consist around 10,000 cells, only about 25-35 which reproduce - 8

> > > asexually and around 15-25 sexually). It can often be hard to tell,

> > > however, what is a colonial protist and what is a multicellular

> > > organism in its own right.

> >

> > > "Most scientists accept that is by the Colonial theory that

> > > Multicellular organisms evolved."

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > Martin,

> > These are the steps that you posted:

> >

> > > > > > STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > > > STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > > > reproduction)

> > > > > > STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > > > survival)

> > > > > > STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > > > function)

> > > > > > STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > > > STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > > > STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > > > STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > > > STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > > > STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

> >

> > I did not notice in the above steps any mention of cell colonies evolving

> > into non-colonies. According to the steps mentioned above, it seems to me

> > that the cell colonies should evolve into a multicelled life form. In this

> > case, the cell colonies became single cells. Would this be called

> > de-evolution or reverse evolution?

>

> The answer is that you have no idea what you are talking about.

> Ameobas are single celled creatures: the fact that they can work in

> tandem supports the cell colony theory. Please read the articles that

> you snip and post from.

>

> There's no such thing as "de-evolution". A whale is a mammal, not a

> fish, the fact that it swims in water not withstanding. Quite

> honestly, Jason, your ignorance makes me want to cry.

>

On the other hand, organisms DO lose previous traits to adapt

to new envirments. Internal parasites have widely done this,

to resounding success. I really don't know at all what Jason

is after here, but I wonder if tapeworms and blind cave animals

would fit his request for examples of "reverse evolution".

-- cary

July 2, 2007

In article <1183402031.809584.178350@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> "Bob T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> writes:

> On Jul 2, 11:16 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Martin

> >

> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > John Popelish

> > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > ...

> > > > >>> or reverse evolution

> > > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"?

> >

> > > > > an example:

> > > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells

> >

> > > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the

> > > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular.

> >

> > > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example

> > > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary

> > > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you

> > > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it.

> >

> > > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per evolution)

> > > > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted

> > > > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells.

> >

> > > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing

> > > > population, that spreads through that population by natural

> > > > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no

> > > > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution

> > > > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect.

> > > > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes.

> >

> > > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > > >>>>> reproduction)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > > >>>>> survival)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > > >>>>> function)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

> >

> > > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the

> > > > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took

> > > > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day

> > > > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss

> > > > of function, because their host provides such a special and

> > > > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to

> > > > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But

> > > > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution,

> > > > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining

> > > > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need

> > > > because they had a different environment, is continuing

> > > > evolution.

> >

> > > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during

> > > > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and

> > > > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for

> > > > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler

> > > > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing

> > > > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger

> > > > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler

> > > > variant, that each take advantage of different niches.

> >

> > > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start

> > > > out with the preconceived notion that all things are

> > > > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is

> > > > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of

> > > > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and

> > > > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason

> > > > than because they can happen.

> >

> > > Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"?

> > > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD

> >

> > > Martin

> >

> > You already know that we believe that God created mankind; some plants and

> > some animals. After the creation process was finished--natural selection

> > kicked in.

> >

> > The cell colony that changed back into single cells that were no longer a

> > part of the cell colony is evidence for creation science and is NOT

> > evidence that supports evolution. If the cell colony had evolved into a

> > multicelled life form--that would have supported evolution theory. I

> > doubt that you or anyone else will understand my point because you have on

> > your "evolution tinted glasses" that makes it impossible for you to see

> > the evidence from another point of view.

> >

> > In other words, steps 4 thru 10 did NOT take place. In fact, the cell

> > colony changed back into single cells that were not part of a colony.

>

> Once again, you have demonstrated that you don't really understand how

> evolution works at all. The list you quote below shows that path that

> evolution took in human history. Most species of living things never

> took step two - there are many more species of bacteria than anything

> else. All humans have fish among our distant ancestors, but yet trout

> and perch are still fish. Every species has its own evolutionary

> path, leading back to a common ancestor several billions of years

> ago. Some of these paths are quite similar, others are quite

> different.

>

> Your point about cell colonies is no point at all. We all know that

> some living things did not evolve to become mammals. Heck, most

> living things did not evolved to become mammals. Heck, by counting

> numbers mammals aren't nearly as successful as insects - there are

> more species of beetles than any other kind of animal on Earth.

And if you look at a modern tree of life plants-and-animals

combined are a tiny and remote set of twigs at the end

of one particular branch out of a huge number of branches.

By far the archaeobacteria and the eubacteria dominate

both in terms of variety and versatility, and in sheer

species count. And the bulk of what's left is made up

of the protoctists and the fungi.

The focus among biologists on animals and plants has

a lot to do with what's important to us, and not

with a more general view of life as a whole.

-- cary

July 2, 2007

In article <Jason-0207071202160001@66-52-22-22.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) writes:

>

> In article <1183401575.719720.76400@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

> T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

>

> > On Jul 2, 11:06 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> > > In article <b1bi839a5v5k9fbibdphar5f05dorvp...@4ax.com>, Don Kresch

> > >

> > > <ROT13.qxer...@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote:

> > > > In alt.atheism On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:54:09 -0700, J...@nospam.com

> > > > (Jason) let us all know that:

> > >

> > > > >In article <DtidnbMBPbT77hXbnZ2dnUVZ_t3in...@sti.net>, "David V."

> > > > ><s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > >

> > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > >> > Question for group: Martin told me that single animal cells

> > > > >> > evolved into animal cell colonies. If that is true, how do you

> > > > >> > explain this:

> > >

> > > > >> > Single-celled Transformers: Marine Phytoplankton Changes Form

> > > > >> > To Protect Itself

> > >

> > > > >> It's called evolution, something you refuse to understand.

> > >

> > > > >or reverse evolution

> > >

> > > > There's no such thing. The idea of evolution as "progress ever

> > > > upward" is only held by layment who don't know what evolution is.

> > >

> > > > Don

> > > > ---

> > > > aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde

> > > > Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

> > >

> > > > "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"

> > > > Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"

> > >

> > > One of main criticisms of evolution theory is that we have not seen cases

> > > of a genus evolving into another genus today. Yes, I have seen evidence of

> > > a new species of fruit fly evolving from another species of fruit fly. I

> > > have seen evidence of a new type of bacteria forming from other types of

> > > bacteria. However, I have not seen evidence of a horse evolving into a

> > > creature that was not a horse.

> >

> > You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day

> > animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a

> > creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is:

> > yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved

> > into the modern horse:

> >

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

>

> Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other

> animals that are NOT FOXES today.

How long have we been looking for such a thing, thinking in these terms?

How long does the above article speculate that the transformation required?

-- cary

July 2, 2007

In article <1183403637.939300.226300@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

T." <bob@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> > > You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day

> > > animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a

> > > creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is:

> > > yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved

> > > into the modern horse:

> >

> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

> >

> > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other

> > animals that are NOT FOXES today.

>

> We do not know what foxes, humans, or redwood trees will evolve into

> someday in the future. We cannot collect evidence about what will

> happen in the future - all we can do is analyze what has happened in

> the past. What does the past tell us? It tells us that every living

> thing on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor, and that some of us

> living things have changed very greatly over time from that ancestor.

>

> It seems to me that you have a mental block about the time scales

> involved here. The amount of evolution that a species undergoes in a

> single generation is miniscule. There is no reason to expect foxes to

> evolve into anything non-fox-like within the time frame of human

> history. Come back in a million years, though, and you will see any

> number of species have evolved into something different from their

> present-day forms.

>

> It's like watching a child grow up. Your question is like asking "How

> can you say your child is growing up? I saw her yesterday and she

> doesn't look any different. I see no evidence that your child is

> changing into an adult!"

>

> - Bob T.

Bob,

You appear to not be able to see it from the creation science point of

view. God created a dog like creature and a horse-like creature. The

horse-like creature may have been what is referred to as Hyracotheruim.

God may have created one or more dog like creatures.

You mention that it takes millions of years before a fox could evolve into

another type of creature. The reality is that foxes have NOT evolved in

the past several thousand years. Foxes are mentioned in the Old

Testament--Judges 15:4. the Book of Judges was written prior to 1004 B.C.

At the very least, the foxes that are living today should be radically

different than the foxes that existed in 1004 B.C. The reality is that

they are still foxes. You mentioned a child growing up--that is about 17

years. In this case, we will are not discussing 17 years but thousands of

years. In much the same way that a child will change in 17 years--the

foxes should have changed within thousands of years. The reality is that

they are still foxes. You need to take a closer look at the evidence. I'm

sure that you have seen pictures in magazines such as Natural Geographic

and Discover Magazine of insects that have been found that have been

perfectly preserved in hardened resin. Some of those insects were several

thousand or perhaps over a million years old. The mosquitoes found

preserved in resin may be slightly different than mosquitioes living today

but they are still mosquitoes. Do you see my points?

Jason

July 2, 2007

On Jul 2, 11:50 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <rtOdndKu0bu3oRTbnZ2dnUVZ_sudn...@sti.net>, "David V."

>

> <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Jason wrote:

> > > \ Would you agree or disagee that the main reason they

> > > attacked Galileo was because they did not want any

> > > competition?

>

> > Is that the reason you attack evolution?

>

> No--I believe that both evolution and ID should be taught. It's my opinion

> (and I could be wrong) that if both evolution and ID was taught--that most

> of the children would agree that ID made more sense than evolution.

Perhaps - and most children can see that the world is flat, not

spherical. Since we know that ID is a lie and evolution is what

really happened, the choice is just as obvious as whether to teach the

"controversy" about whether or not the Earth is flat.

> Believe it or not, most of the advocates of ID support Natural Selection.

> They do not support common descent or abiogenesis.

They (you) support lies and falsehoods.

- Bob T.

> jason

July 2, 2007

In article <f6bkdv$ja5$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,

cary@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

> In article <1183367816.929104.115300@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin

Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> writes:

> > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > Jason wrote:

> > > > John Popelish

> > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > ...

> > > >>> or reverse evolution

> > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"?

> > >

> > > > an example:

> > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells

> > >

> > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the

> > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular.

> > >

> > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example

> > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary

> > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you

> > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it.

> > >

> > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per

evolution)

> > > > a single cell evolving into a cell colony. The article that I posted

> > > > provided evidence of a cell colony reverse evolving into single cells.

> > >

> > > Any change caused by mutation in the genome of a reproducing

> > > population, that spreads through that population by natural

> > > selection, is evolution. The nature of the change has no

> > > bearing on that simple statement. In other words, evolution

> > > has no goal or direction of complexity or any other aspect.

> > > It is the process that changes life forms as time passes.

> > >

> > > >>>>> STEP 1 Single cell (example: bacteria)

> > > >>>>> STEP 2 Single animal cell (with DNA nucleus capable of sexual

> > > >>>>> reproduction)

> > > >>>>> STEP 3 Animal cell colony (with cells depending upon each other for

> > > >>>>> survival)

> > > >>>>> STEP 4 Multicelled animal (with cells differentiated according to

> > > >>>>> function)

> > > >>>>> STEP 5 Vertibrates (example: fish)

> > > >>>>> STEP 6 Amphibians (example: frog)

> > > >>>>> STEP 7 Reptiles (example: lizard)

> > > >>>>> STEP 8 Mammals (example: mouse)

> > > >>>>> STEP 9 Primates (example: chimpanzee)

> > > >>>>> STEP 10 Man (examples: me and you)

> > >

> > > Those are some of the major changes that took place in the

> > > family line ending with you and me. Other changes took

> > > place in other lines. Lines that lead to present day

> > > parasitic forms often have lots of simplification and loss

> > > of function, because their host provides such a special and

> > > consistent environment that abilities that were useful to

> > > their non parasitic forbears have little use for them. But

> > > losing something you don't need is not reverse evolution,

> > > but the continuation of evolution, just as much as gaining

> > > something new that is useful that your forbears didn't need

> > > because they had a different environment, is continuing

> > > evolution.

> > >

> > > Evolution is the process that changes living forms during

> > > the passage of time and circumstance. Sometimes and

> > > somewheres, larger and more complicated is better for

> > > survival, and sometimes and somewheres, smaller and simpler

> > > is better for survival. And sometimes and somewheres, doing

> > > either is better and a species gives rise to both a larger

> > > and more complicated variant, and a smaller and simpler

> > > variant, that each take advantage of different niches.

> > >

> > > I understand why this is difficult for you. When you start

> > > out with the preconceived notion that all things are

> > > preplanned and carefully designed, and everything is

> > > intentional and purposeful, it is very strange to let go of

> > > the notions of planning, intention, design and purpose and

> > > really try to imagine things happening for no other reason

> > > than because they can happen.

> >

> > Exactly! How does "de-evolution" fit in with "intelligent design"?

> > Does his god make mistakes and have to go back? XD

>

> Well, given that most paleontologists agree that, as a crude

> estimate, over 99% of all species have gone extinct, I'd

> say that the Intelligent Desinger has a horrible recall rate.

>

> -- cary

But millions of species have NOT gone extinct--that is a very good track record.

God left mankind in charge of the world--in many cases--mankind is to

blame for the extinctions.

July 2, 2007

On Jul 2, 1:29 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <1183403637.939300.226...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, "Bob

>

> T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:

> > > > You are looking at that backwards because the horse is a present day

> > > > animal. You should instead ask whether there is evidence that a

> > > > creature that was not a horse evolved into a horse. The answer is:

> > > > yes, there is plenty of evidence that a small fox-like mammal evolved

> > > > into the modern horse:

>

> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

>

> > > Good point--however, we don't find evidence of foxes evolving into other

> > > animals that are NOT FOXES today.

>

> > We do not know what foxes, humans, or redwood trees will evolve into

> > someday in the future. We cannot collect evidence about what will

> > happen in the future - all we can do is analyze what has happened in

> > the past. What does the past tell us? It tells us that every living

> > thing on Earth has evolved from a common ancestor, and that some of us

> > living things have changed very greatly over time from that ancestor.

>

> > It seems to me that you have a mental block about the time scales

> > involved here. The amount of evolution that a species undergoes in a

> > single generation is miniscule. There is no reason to expect foxes to

> > evolve into anything non-fox-like within the time frame of human

> > history. Come back in a million years, though, and you will see any

> > number of species have evolved into something different from their

> > present-day forms.

>

> > It's like watching a child grow up. Your question is like asking "How

> > can you say your child is growing up? I saw her yesterday and she

> > doesn't look any different. I see no evidence that your child is

> > changing into an adult!"

>

> > - Bob T.

>

> Bob,

> You appear to not be able to see it from the creation science point of

> view. God created a dog like creature and a horse-like creature. The

> horse-like creature may have been what is referred to as Hyracotheruim.

> God may have created one or more dog like creatures.

I have no more trouble understanding your point of view than I have

understanding the Flat-Earth point of view. Both Creationists and

Flat-Earthers have a simple, easy-to-grasp, point of view that is flat-

out wrong.

>

> You mention that it takes millions of years before a fox could evolve into

> another type of creature. The reality is that foxes have NOT evolved in

> the past several thousand years. Foxes are mentioned in the Old

> Testament--Judges 15:4. the Book of Judges was written prior to 1004 B.C.

> At the very least, the foxes that are living today should be radically

> different than the foxes that existed in 1004 B.C. The reality is that

> they are still foxes. You mentioned a child growing up--that is about 17

> years. In this case, we will are not discussing 17 years but thousands of

> years. In much the same way that a child will change in 17 years--the

> foxes should have changed within thousands of years.

No! You still don't get it! Thousands of years in the life of a

species is like a week in the growth of a child! We do _not_ expect

to see noticable change in a species over a few thousand years!!!

> The reality is that they are still foxes. You need to take a closer look at the evidence. I'm

> sure that you have seen pictures in magazines such as Natural Geographic

> and Discover Magazine of insects that have been found that have been

> perfectly preserved in hardened resin. Some of those insects were several

> thousand or perhaps over a million years old. The mosquitoes found

> preserved in resin may be slightly different than mosquitioes living today

> but they are still mosquitoes. Do you see my points?

Yes, I see your point. I understand your point. You're just plain

wrong. If a species is well-adapted to its environment, there is no

reason to expect it to change in any visible way, even over a period

of millions of years. Mosquitoes are well-adapted (too well-adapted,

if you ask me), and there is no reason to expect them to evolve into

anything but slightly different mosquitoes over a million years.

Sharks have been around in pretty much their present form for much

longer than a million years. On the other hand, certain homonids have

evolved a great deal in the past million years. When the environment

for a particular species changes, that species will adapt or go

extinct. When the environment doesn't change much, the species in it

won't change much, either.

It's frustrating to discuss evolution with you because you don't

understand how it works, despite the many many times that people have

pointed you to articles that explain it very well. Did you bother to

read the Wikipedia article on horse evolution I posted earlier today?

We can trace horse ancestry back to creatures that would never be

described as "horse-like".

- Bob T.

> Jason- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

July 2, 2007

On Jul 2, 1:32 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <f6bkdv$ja...@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,

>

> c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:

> > In article <1183367816.929104.115...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Martin

> Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> writes:

> > > On Jul 2, 12:41 pm, John Popelish <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > > Jason wrote:

> > > > > John Popelish

> > > > > <jpopel...@rica.net> wrote:

> > > > >> Jason wrote:

> > > > ...

> > > > >>> or reverse evolution

> > > > >> What is your working definition of "reverse evolution"?

>

> > > > > an example:

> > > > > cell colony reverse evolving into single cells

>

> > > > You are using the term reverse evolution to describe the

> > > > example of reverse evolution. That is pretty circular.

>

> > > > Can you summarize a definition without giving an example

> > > > labeled as reverse evolution. I see nothing but ordinary

> > > > forward time evolution in your example, regardless of you

> > > > adding the label "reverse evolution" to it.

>

> > > > > This is the list that Martin posted--please notice that (as per

> evolution)