Creationists

[Koios]

Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Good girl, Ywc. Quote some Creationist junk science loons. That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff. Bravo, madame.

Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics

Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.

Nope. Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about. Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Astonishing. Yes; you're right, albeit by accident, seemingly, and only sort of. Every fucking gene we have is the result of mutation. Every one. Ditto on PAX9, for example. (and all others). So, and because learning is supposed to benefit from repetition, I should add, pick a fucking gene, and rest assured, it's mutated. Or looking at it another way, all your genes are mutations; plus mine; Hollie's; Hell; all of them, in plants and animals ... are mutated.

Next, they turn on an off. Imagine being in a big room, but through poor planning of a divine origin, the fucking door is on the opposite side of the room from the light switch. And it's a really big room, that takes you 3 million years to cross. So off goes the light switch, and the nice 200 watt bulb it controls. Great. Save money and the planet from global warming. All good. But now you're crossing the very, very big room, and it's all dark and shit, despite having the same lightbulb, and a whopper, what with it being 200 Watts and all, but no fucking help in your 3 million year room crossing, since the mutherfucker was turned off.

That help?

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Good girl, Ywc. Quote some Creationist junk science loons. That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff. Bravo, madame.

Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics

Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.

Nope. Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about. Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.

Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.

 

[Koios]

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

Nope. That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works. It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time. Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit. Plus they raised goats and other beasts. And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable. So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "Each after their own kind" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL. (but we know better, now, don't we?)

 

[Koios]

Plus, since we're having to dispute the goddamn Bible, what other practical problems might they have had, maybe planting shit? Incompatible plants, root entanglement? Hell yes; they didn;t know plant biology. So what's the problem? God doesn't like it when you plant your field with mingled seed. IT'S AN ABOMINATION UNTO HIM, right along with guys butt-fucking other guys.

But we know better, now, and have for centuries. Just plant in rows with even spacing and all will grow nicely. Plus some species of plants grow well together, and can even be crossed to make hybrid species. It's all good, and not a sin really. Just a misunderstanding back in biblical times. No sweat. Have a vegetable garden, just keeping stuff nicely spaced. Forget the whole mingled seed nonsense, since we can put that into an historical context. But not guys buggering each other, bygod!!!!

Ergo my earlier comment / characterization: foolishness. Get with the times, for christsake. Made up nonsense from 1000s of years ago is not real. Real is evolution. Fact.

 

[Koios]

Really you don't know who Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max is and you supposedly understand muations and population genetics

Watch who you call girl pal. What are you afraid of they discuss the muations and genes we are discussing but they go in to a little more detail. You atheistic evolutionist are afraid of Dr.Spetner.

Nope. Just question their objectivity in saying what it means and how it came about. Noodle on that; you might have an epiphany bordering on biblical.

Then maybe you should know them before you pass judgement.

What's not to know? They're Creationists, making it their mission to advance the nonsense!!!!

If Jews are writing all manner of things about how eating pork is bad, might it be okay to assume they won't eat bacon?

 

[daws101]

You will burn in a special kind of Hell that God saved for Abominations like you who mutated and thus have too-active brains.

Amen

Mutations I believe are how God carried out his punishment for sin and of course several other mechanisms.

Somebody call security.....

why does this always happen at lunch?

 

[daws101]

The genes don't get lost that is what your side claims I quoted someone from your side, What I am saying is all genes get expressed they don't sit dormant for many years and just pop up and get expressed at a later date.

I believe the child that had what your side claims is a tail was the result of a gene mutation.

If you have a dog and it is considered a purebred,it is a purebred with only the genetic information to produce that breed. Sometimes the offspring suffer a mutation and have a deformity But still the parents were both purebreds and only possessed the genetic information to produce that breed and it's traits.

Ah. I see. So because your arguments self-refute, you're forced to launch yet another conspiracy involving "my side".

Have you tried to objectively read your comments? You're simply making up nonsense as you go along and you're now "sounding" like an even bigger buffoon.

I am sorry but you can't teach a chimp to type a sentence, it went over your head. This is my last attempt to explain this I will try to put it in simple to understand explanation. All genes get expressed and with more and more generations all the genetic information from the other breeds that it took to create the new breed their information is bred out of the line over generations proving you breed out information not breed in new information unless of course you cross breed where new information is introduced.

Parents genes determine what the offspring will be and sometimes one parents gene is expressed over the other parents gene but both parents genes are passed on to the genome of the offspring.

trying to make a little extra cash with your sig line ..cheap.

 

[daws101]

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

again it's no proof
observation by who?

 

[daws101]

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

Nope. That's just talking about how to plant shit, and how the "birds and bees" story works. It has ZIPPOLA to do with genetic variations over time. Hell; consider its authors: living in the eastern med / north africa region, and planting shit. Plus they raised goats and other beasts. And all was seemingly ordered, and predicatable. So their imagined maker (God) made everthing the same way and never did it occur to them (Bible authors) that shit will change with time due to MUTATIONS which no reigious belief, to my knowledge, ever fucking imagined, much less even alluded to. "Each after their own kind" says APES make FUCKING APES, ONLY, AND ALWAYS WILL. (but we know better, now, don't we?)

ywc "thinks" that observation some how disproves evolution, the idea there is evidence proving it eludes him.

 

[Hollie]

I don't need your help to understand gene expression

Cool. But I need your help. Where in theology (not junk Creationist pseudosciense; real live religion(s)) might God's gene expression design (intelligent, we assume) be mentioned?

Pray you can point me to it, since I'm fucking pins and needles, praise God.

Amen.

It say's 10 times in the book of genesis kinds bring forth after their own kind after billions of observations kinds do bring forth after their own kinds. Notice what it say's concerning the seed.

Gen 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth tender sprouts (the herb seeding seed and the fruit tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed is in itself) upon the earth; and it was so.
Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth tender sprouts, the herb yielding seed after its kind, and the tree producing fruit after its kind, whose seed was in itself. And God saw that it was good.


Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creepers, and its beasts of the earth after its kind; and it was so.
Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after its kind, and cattle after their kind, and all creepers upon the earth after their kind. And God saw that it was good.

Your hopeless attempt to link a few lines from the bible with a description of gene mapping is ludicrous. You attempted a similar fraud with linking the bibles description of rivers flowing to the sea with a comprehensive description of the hydrologic cycle.

It’s patently ridiculous.

Your paragraphs from Genesis are nothing more than similar, simple observations of rivers to the sea. “Fruit tree producing fruit” is precisely the simple observation one would expect from a farmer or herdsman of the time. There is nothing at all profound or meaningful in those verses.

In a time when the ebb and flow of life and of one’s fortune was dictated solely through forces and events they had little knowledge or control over, life was a function of very elemental demands for survival.

As we see with regularity, your posts imply that the existence of the universe pre-supposes a creation of the universe which must then be considered a logical argument for the existence of a creator who must then be considered a particular, partisan gawd.


Did the universe come into existence?

If so, does the appearance of the universe imply a creator?

If so, must this creator be your partisan gawds?

I would answer all of these questions negatively.

 

[Hollie]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner

Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.

It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as “macroevolution never being seen” but does he similarly question one or more forms of “creation” never being seen?

We know that the universe came into existence. As we are naturally occurring creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and therefore logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which seek to fit observable phenomena into a framework that is not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

On the other hand, let's assume an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Further, let's assume that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm in charge over immaterial, immortal humans. The logical implication is that such a supernatural entity would consider material, temporal existence to be irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished their creation, would themselves become irrelevant and could then cease to exist.

These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.

 

[Koios]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner

Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.

It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as “macroevolution never being seen” but does he similarly question one or more forms of “creation” never being seen?

We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.

These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.

And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????

Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.

 

[Hollie]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner

Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.

It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as “macroevolution never being seen” but does he similarly question one or more forms of “creation” never being seen?

We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.

These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.

And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????

Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.

I can't say I read the entire exchange between Spetner and Max but enough to understand the relative positions. As is usual for arguments from creationists, there was never, ever, any attempt to provide positive evidence for whatever "creator(s)" were proposed by Spetner. His entire position was one of (in my opinion) failed attempts to discredit evolution. This seems to be a standard tactic of creationism: attack the various sciences supporting evolution while inferring that will promote creationism.

 

[UltimateReality]

and how many gay people would that be one ..two ..five..
the admission of child sexual abuse is no indicator of sexual preference.
you interpreted it that way to fit you agenda.

The American Psychiatric Association stated in its May 2000 website fact sheet "Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues":


"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.

Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual."

May 2000 - American Psychiatric Association



Kali Munro, M.Ed., an online psychotherapist, wrote the following statements in her 2002 article titled "Am I Gay Because of the Abuse?," and posted on her website KaliMunro.com (accessed Mar. 5, 2009):


"Sexual abuse can interfere with sexual enjoyment; contribute to a survivor engaging in sexual behaviours that arise from the abuse; and interfere with survivors' ability to know what they want. But, sexual abuse can't create a survivor's deepest passion and desires...

We are all socially conditioned through culture, education, family, media, etc. Sexual abuse is another form of conditioning. As a result, sexual abuse survivors can be drawn to or be repulsed by things that have nothing to do with their authentic selves, and have more to do with their abuse... Homophobia plays a big role in creating the link between gay sexuality and sexual abuse. The myth that lesbians and gay men are sexual predators is still very much alive. In a society that links lesbian and gay sexuality with sexual predators, and where there is little or no information for youth about lesbian and gay sexuality, many lesbian and gay survivors assume that sexual abuse by someone of the same sex is what being gay is...

The truth is that sexual abuse and sexuality are a million miles apart; they truly have nothing in common. Something as wonderful and beautiful as our sexuality could never have arisen out of something as ugly and painful as sexual abuse."

Can childhood sexual abuse by a person of the same sex cause homosexuality? - Born Gay - ProCon.org

Manipulated data. Just like the militant gay lobby silenced the AIDs epidemic and all reporting. Nice try monkey effer.

just as expected, cry conspiracy when you have no evidence.
for someone who claims to have no homosexual urges you're inordinately interested in it.

Yeah, you caught me. I'm gay and I don't care who knows it!! No more closet for me!!! Woo Hoo!!!

 

[UltimateReality]

Hollie, you ignorant slut! We know that evolution is a myth, because it can be disproven by anyone who has studied genetics by seeing one or two TV shows that talk about it with cool video that helps them think they understand shit, and are thus able to make wild assumptions in keeping with HIS! word.

Micro-adaptations are what evolutionist extrapolate from to say macro-evolution happens. Let's get more in depth of mutations with a guy from your side and one from my side that debates the issue of mutations. My guy believes in evolution but not mutations as being a mechanism.

Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.

Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Good girl, Ywc. Quote some Creationist junk science loons. That way they seem stupid, and not you seeming stupid, by saying your own stuff. Bravo, madame.

Koios has added even more douchebaggery and mental midgetry to this thread than even Daws and Gawly Hawly were capable of. Time to take another hiatus until some intelligence makes an appearance. Good luck YWC.

 

[CrackedSkull]

We know creation stories are a myth because every ancient civilization had one...So what are creationists bring to the table that has not been recreated already? Your purporting nothing new only a rehash of ancient junk that came before the bible myth.

 

[ima]

So how many rolls of toilet paper did Noah bring for his crew for 40 days?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

What you left out in its entirety was the closing summary by Edward E. Max wherein he asks some rather obvious questions of Spetner and makes some similarly obvious observations

The Evolution of Improved Fitness: Correspondence with Lee Spetner

Spetner has avoided specifying precisely what he means by his preferred model of "creation," so he avoids having to defend his model against scrutiny similar to what he has applied to evolutionary theory. Even a supernatural "creation" should leave traces that might be different from those expected from evolutionary theory. If his "creation" alternative does not make specific predictions that might distinguish it from evolution, it is not a useful scientific model. This may not bother Spetner, who has said that science is not the only source of knowledge; but as discussed below, it suggests that Spetner's views do not deserve consideration in science classrooms or textbooks.

It really is obvious that the creationist cabal is hoping to avoid some rather glaring inconsistencies. We see for example that Spetner is critical of what he describes as “macroevolution never being seen” but does he similarly question one or more forms of “creation” never being seen?

We know that the universe came into existence. As we are natural creatures, we are incapable of seeing supernatural phenomena and thus are logically limited to natural explanations. Theories exist which strive to fit observable phenomena into a framework not contradicted by observations. These theories have proven to be consistent with a large number of further observations. The logical implication is that theory will continue to be proven as more observations arise needing to be reconciled with extant theory.

On the other hand, assume that an observation will occur that cannot be reconciled with any natural theory thus proving a supernatural realm. Assume further that this supernatural realm is directly controlled by one or more gawds. Gawds are, by definiton, immortal, supernatural beings. They exist in an immaterial, eternal realm given charge over immaterial, immortal souls. The logical implication is that such a being would consider material, temporal existence irrelevant. These supernatural beings responsible for creation of the natural universe would, after having finished the action of creation, also become irrelevant and could then without repercussion, cease to exist.

These statements are logically consistent. Those looking for evidence of supernatural beings in logic would more profitably consider looking elsewhere.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting (reading the drivel). I rejected it on its face, considering the source.

And I'm astonished. Never seen macroevolution??? What in the fuck were the finches on the Galapagos Islands that got Darwin's curiosity brewing????

Can these people be more dense!!!!! Astonishing. Truly. I was taken aback when reading what you'd quoted from the numbskull.

The finches were not macro-evolution They were micro-adaptations.

You are speaking nonsense what both Dr's were commenting on neither of you apparently never understood.

 

[Hollie]

Koios has added even more douchebaggery and mental midgetry to this thread than even Daws and Gawly Hawly were capable of. Time to take another hiatus until some intelligence makes an appearance. Good luck YWC.

There sure is a lot of hate in fundie'dom. I suppose with the efforts at proselytizing not going well it was appropriate to define anyone who disagreed with the creationist position as a "douchebag" and a "mental midget".

Hate, seems to define the creationist mindset.